Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Make stack_save_restore_2 more robust

2023-10-27 Thread Patrick O'Neill
On 10/27/23 11:02, Jeff Law wrote: On 10/27/23 11:56, Patrick O'Neill wrote: GCC recently changed to emit __riscv_restore_5 which causes this testcase to fail. This patch updates the regex to be more robust to change by accepting any number after __riscv_save_ and __riscv_restore_.

Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Make stack_save_restore_2 more robust

2023-10-27 Thread Jeff Law
On 10/27/23 11:56, Patrick O'Neill wrote: GCC recently changed to emit __riscv_restore_5 which causes this testcase to fail. This patch updates the regex to be more robust to change by accepting any number after __riscv_save_ and __riscv_restore_. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: *

[PATCH] RISC-V: Make stack_save_restore_2 more robust

2023-10-27 Thread Patrick O'Neill
GCC recently changed to emit __riscv_restore_5 which causes this testcase to fail. This patch updates the regex to be more robust to change by accepting any number after __riscv_save_ and __riscv_restore_. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_2.c: Accept any