RISC-V: Make xtheadcondmov-indirect tests robust against instruction reordering

Fixes: c1bc7513b1 ("RISC-V: const: hide mvconst splitter from IRA")

A recent change broke the xtheadcondmov-indirect tests, because the order of
emitted instructions changed. Since the test is too strict when testing for
a fixed instruction order, let's change the tests to simply count instruction,
like it is done for similar tests.

Reported-by: Patrick O'Neill <patrick@rivosinc.com>
Signed-off-by: Christoph Müllner <christoph.muellner@vrull.eu>

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

	* gcc.target/riscv/xtheadcondmov-indirect.c: Make robust against
	instruction reordering.
This commit is contained in:
Christoph Müllner 2023-10-10 00:40:35 +02:00
parent 53a94071fa
commit d8c3ace898

View file

@ -1,16 +1,11 @@
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "-march=rv32gc_xtheadcondmov -fno-sched-pressure" { target { rv32 } } } */
/* { dg-options "-march=rv64gc_xtheadcondmov -fno-sched-pressure" { target { rv64 } } } */
/* { dg-options "-march=rv32gc_xtheadcondmov" { target { rv32 } } } */
/* { dg-options "-march=rv64gc_xtheadcondmov" { target { rv64 } } } */
/* { dg-skip-if "" { *-*-* } {"-O0" "-Os" "-Og" "-Oz" "-flto" } } */
/* { dg-final { check-function-bodies "**" "" } } */
/*
** ConEmv_imm_imm_reg:
** addi a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+,-1000
** li a[0-9]+,10
** th\.mvnez a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+
** ret
*/
/* addi aX, aX, -1000
li aX, 10
th.mvnez aX, aX, aX */
int ConEmv_imm_imm_reg(int x, int y)
{
if (x == 1000)
@ -18,13 +13,8 @@ int ConEmv_imm_imm_reg(int x, int y)
return y;
}
/*
** ConEmv_imm_reg_reg:
** addi a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+,-1000
** th.mveqz a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+
** mv a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+
** ret
*/
/* addi aX, aX, -1000
th.mveqz aX, aX, aX */
int ConEmv_imm_reg_reg(int x, int y, int z)
{
if (x == 1000)
@ -32,13 +22,9 @@ int ConEmv_imm_reg_reg(int x, int y, int z)
return z;
}
/*
** ConEmv_reg_imm_reg:
** sub a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+
** li a[0-9]+,10
** th.mvnez a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+
** ret
*/
/* sub aX, aX, aX
li aX, 10
th.mvnez aX, aX, aX */
int ConEmv_reg_imm_reg(int x, int y, int z)
{
if (x == y)
@ -46,13 +32,8 @@ int ConEmv_reg_imm_reg(int x, int y, int z)
return z;
}
/*
** ConEmv_reg_reg_reg:
** sub a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+
** th.mveqz a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+
** mv a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+
** ret
*/
/* sub aX, aX, aX
th.mveqz aX, aX, aX */
int ConEmv_reg_reg_reg(int x, int y, int z, int n)
{
if (x == y)
@ -60,14 +41,10 @@ int ConEmv_reg_reg_reg(int x, int y, int z, int n)
return n;
}
/*
** ConNmv_imm_imm_reg:
** addi a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+,-1000+
** li a[0-9]+,9998336+
** addi a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+,1664+
** th.mveqz a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+
** ret
*/
/* addi aX, aX, -1000
li aX, 9998336
addi aX, aX, 1664
th.mveqz aX, aX, aX */
int ConNmv_imm_imm_reg(int x, int y)
{
if (x != 1000)
@ -75,13 +52,8 @@ int ConNmv_imm_imm_reg(int x, int y)
return y;
}
/*
**ConNmv_imm_reg_reg:
** addi a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+,-1000+
** th.mvnez a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+
** mv a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+
** ret
*/
/* addi aX, aX, 1000
th.mvnez aX, aX, aX */
int ConNmv_imm_reg_reg(int x, int y, int z)
{
if (x != 1000)
@ -89,13 +61,9 @@ int ConNmv_imm_reg_reg(int x, int y, int z)
return z;
}
/*
**ConNmv_reg_imm_reg:
** sub a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+
** li a[0-9]+,10+
** th.mveqz a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+
** ret
*/
/* sub aX, aX, aX
li aX, 10
th.mveqz aX, aX, aX */
int ConNmv_reg_imm_reg(int x, int y, int z)
{
if (x != y)
@ -103,16 +71,17 @@ int ConNmv_reg_imm_reg(int x, int y, int z)
return z;
}
/*
**ConNmv_reg_reg_reg:
** sub a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+
** th.mvnez a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+
** mv a[0-9]+,a[0-9]+
** ret
*/
/* sub aX, aX, aX
th.mvnez aX, aX, aX */
int ConNmv_reg_reg_reg(int x, int y, int z, int n)
{
if (x != y)
return z;
return n;
}
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "addi\t" 5 } } */
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "li\t" 4 } } */
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "sub\t" 4 } } */
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "th.mveqz\t" 4 } } */
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "th.mvnez\t" 4 } } */