> On Dec 11, 2014, at 10:06 AM, Tejas Belagod <tejas.bela...@arm.com> wrote:
>
>> On 22/11/14 23:41, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> Hi,
>> After the conditional compare patches, the some of the
>> gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_*.c testcases start to fail. This was
>> due to no longer duplicating simple_return and causing the epilogue to
>> be duplicated.
>>
>> This changes the testcases to expect the non duplicated epilogue.
>>
>> Committed as obvious after a test of aarch64-elf.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew Pinski
>>
>> ChangeLog:
>> * gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_1.c: Expect only two loads of x30 (in
>> the epilogue).
>> * gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_6.c: Likewise.
>> * gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_2.c: Expect only one pair load of x30
>> and x19 (in the epilogue).
>> * gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_4.c: Likewise.
>> * gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_7.c: Likewise.
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> I'm still seeing the original number of ldr x30 and ldp x19, x30 insns for
> these tests. What am I missing?
The ccmp patch had to be reverted. But this patch was forgotten when it was.
Just revert the testcase patch.
Thanks,
Andrew
>
> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_1.c scan-assembler-times ldr\tx30,
> \\[sp\\], [0-9]+ 2
> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_2.c scan-assembler-times ldp\tx19, x30,
> \\[sp\\], [0-9]+ 1
> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_4.c scan-assembler-times ldp\tx19, x30,
> \\[sp\\], [0-9]+ 1
> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_6.c scan-assembler-times ldr\tx30,
> \\[sp\\], [0-9]+ 2
> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/test_frame_7.c scan-assembler-times ldp\tx19, x30,
> \\[sp\\], [0-9]+ 1
>
> Thanks,
> Tejas,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
