RISC-V: Fix stack_save_restore_1/2 test cases
Checks
Commit Message
This patch fixes failing stack_save_restore_1/2 test cases.
After 6619b3d4c15c commit size of the frame was changed.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_1.c: Update frame size
* gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_2.c: Likewise.
Comments
Hi Jivan,
On 8/24/23 08:45, Jivan Hakobyan via Gcc-patches wrote:
> This patch fixes failing stack_save_restore_1/2 test cases.
> After 6619b3d4c15c commit size of the frame was changed.
>
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> * gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_1.c: Update frame size
> * gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_2.c: Likewise.
Do you mind sending your patches inline using git send-email or some such ?
Thx,
-Vineet
Hi Vineet.
Do you mind sending your patches inline using git send-email or some such ?
Never thought about that, what is the purpose of sending it in that way?
Of course, if it is more convenient for the community then I will send
through git.
On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 9:12 AM Vineet Gupta <vineetg@rivosinc.com> wrote:
> Hi Jivan,
>
> On 8/24/23 08:45, Jivan Hakobyan via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > This patch fixes failing stack_save_restore_1/2 test cases.
> > After 6619b3d4c15c commit size of the frame was changed.
> >
> >
> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> > * gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_1.c: Update frame size
> > * gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_2.c: Likewise.
>
> Do you mind sending your patches inline using git send-email or some such ?
>
> Thx,
> -Vineet
>
On 8/24/23 09:45, Jivan Hakobyan via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Subject:
> RISC-V: Fix stack_save_restore_1/2 test cases
> From:
> Jivan Hakobyan via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
> Date:
> 8/24/23, 09:45
>
> To:
> GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, Jeff Law <jlaw@ventanamicro.com>
>
>
> This patch fixes failing stack_save_restore_1/2 test cases.
> After 6619b3d4c15c commit size of the frame was changed.
>
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> * gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_1.c: Update frame size
> * gcc.target/riscv/stack_save_restore_2.c: Likewise.
Rather than use specific values for the size of the stack in this test,
can we match something a little more general so that we're not
constantly having to come back and adjust the stack offset?
I'm not real familiar with the check-function-bodies capabilities, but I
suspect we can probably use a regexp like [0-9]+ rather than 2016, 2032,
etc.
Jeff
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ float getf();
/*
** bar:
** call t0,__riscv_save_(3|4)
-** addi sp,sp,-2032
+** addi sp,sp,-2016
** ...
** li t0,-12288
** add sp,sp,t0
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ float getf();
** li t0,12288
** add sp,sp,t0
** ...
-** addi sp,sp,2032
+** addi sp,sp,2016
** tail __riscv_restore_(3|4)
*/
int bar()
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ float getf();
/*
** bar:
** call t0,__riscv_save_(3|4)
-** addi sp,sp,-2032
+** addi sp,sp,-2016
** ...
** li t0,-12288
** add sp,sp,t0
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ float getf();
** li t0,12288
** add sp,sp,t0
** ...
-** addi sp,sp,2032
+** addi sp,sp,2016
** tail __riscv_restore_(3|4)
*/
int bar()