Message ID | 1e0cb5d8-3f59-40a9-a9fc-1269b836a57c@arm.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | [comitted] bitint: Fix testism where __seg_gs was being used for all targets | expand |
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 04:13:29PM +0000, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > Replaced uses of __seg_gs with the MACRO SEG defined in the testcase to pick > (if any) the right __seg_{gs,fs} keyword based on target. > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > * gcc.dg/bitint-86.c (__seg_gs): Replace with SEG MACRO. ChangeLog should be * gcc.dg/bitint-86.c (foo, bar, baz): Replace __seg_gs with SEG. Otherwise, LGTM. Sorry for forgetting to do that myself. Jakub
On 19/02/2024 16:17, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 04:13:29PM +0000, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> Replaced uses of __seg_gs with the MACRO SEG defined in the testcase to pick >> (if any) the right __seg_{gs,fs} keyword based on target. >> >> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: >> >> * gcc.dg/bitint-86.c (__seg_gs): Replace with SEG MACRO. > > ChangeLog should be > * gcc.dg/bitint-86.c (foo, bar, baz): Replace __seg_gs with SEG. > Otherwise, LGTM. > Sorry for forgetting to do that myself. > > > Jakub > That makes sense ... but I already pushed it upstream, thought it was obvious. Apologies for the ChangeLog mistake :(
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bitint-86.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bitint-86.c index 4e5761a203bc39150540326df9c0d88544bb02ef..10a2392b6f530ae165252bdac750061e92d53131 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bitint-86.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bitint-86.c @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ struct T { struct S b[4]; }; #endif void -foo (__seg_gs struct T *p) +foo (SEG struct T *p) { struct S s; p->b[0] = s; } void -bar (__seg_gs struct T *p, _BitInt(710) x, int y, double z) +bar (SEG struct T *p, _BitInt(710) x, int y, double z) { p->b[0].a = x + 42; p->b[1].a = x << y; @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ bar (__seg_gs struct T *p, _BitInt(710) x, int y, double z) } int -baz (__seg_gs struct T *p, _BitInt(710) x, _BitInt(710) y) +baz (SEG struct T *p, _BitInt(710) x, _BitInt(710) y) { return __builtin_add_overflow (x, y, &p->b[1].a); }