> > On 19/11/14 09:29, Yangfei (Felix) wrote:
> > >>> Sorry for missing the point. It seems to me that 't2' here will
> > >>> conflict with
> > >> condition of the pattern *movhi_insn_arch4:
> > >>> "TARGET_ARM
> > >>> && arm_arch4
> > >>> && (register_operand (operands[0], HImode)
> > >>> || register_operand (operands[1], HImode))"
> > >>>
> > >>> #define TARGET_ARM (! TARGET_THUMB)
> > >>> /* 32-bit Thumb-2 code. */
> > >>> #define TARGET_THUMB2 (TARGET_THUMB &&
> > >> arm_arch_thumb2)
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Bah, Indeed ! - I misremembered the t2 there, my mistake.
> > >>
> > >> Yes you are right there, but what I'd like you to do is to use that
> > >> mechanism rather than putting all this logic in the predicate.
> > >>
> > >> So, I'd prefer you to add a v6t2 to the values for the "arch"
> > >> attribute, don't forget to update the comments above.
> > >>
> > >> and in arch_enabled you need to enforce this with
> > >>
> > >> (and (eq_attr "arch" "v6t2")
> > >> (match_test "TARGET_32BIT && arm_arch6 &&
> > arm_arch_thumb2"))
> > >> (const_string "yes")
> > >>
> > >> And in the pattern use v6t2 ...
> > >>
> > >> arm_arch_thumb2 implies that this is at the architecture level of v6t2.
> > >> Therefore TARGET_ARM && arm_arch_thumb2 implies ARM state.
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Ramana,
> > > Thank you for your suggestions. I rebased the patch on the
> > > latest trunk
> > and updated it accordingly.
> > > As this patch will not work for architectures older than
> > > armv6t2, I also
> > prefer Thomas's patch to fix for them.
> > > I am currently performing test for this patch. Assuming no
> > > issues pops
> > up, OK for the trunk?
> > > And is it necessary to backport this patch to the 4.8 & 4.9 branches?
> > >
> >
> > I've applied the following as obvious after Kugan mentioned on IRC
> > this morning noticing a movwne r0, #-32768. Obviously this won't be
> > accepted as is by the assembler and we should be using the %L character.
> Applied to trunk as obvious.
> >
> > Felix, How did you test this patch ?
> >
> > regards
> > Ramana
>
>
> I regtested the patch for arm-eabi-gcc/g++ & big-endian with qemu. The test
> result is OK. That's strange ...
>
> This issue can be reproduced by the following testcase. Thanks for fixing it.
>
> #include <stdio.h>
> unsigned short v = 0x5678;
> int i;
> int j = 0;
> int *ptr = &j;
> int func()
> {
> for (i = 0; i < 1; ++i)
> {
> *ptr = -1;
> v = 0xF234;
> }
> return v;
> }
>
And the architecture level is set to armv7-a by default when testing.
