From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18601 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2007 20:42:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 18590 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Oct 2007 20:42:48 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from miranda.se.axis.com (HELO miranda.se.axis.com) (193.13.178.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:42:46 +0000 Received: from axis.com (edgar.se.axis.com [10.92.151.1]) by miranda.se.axis.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id l9MKgfms014761 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:42:41 +0200 Received: (qmail 3370 invoked by uid 400); 22 Oct 2007 20:42:41 -0000 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:01:00 -0000 From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" To: Hans-Peter Nilsson Cc: edgar.iglesias@axis.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] CRIS sim and it's testsuite Message-ID: <20071022204241.GA3330@edgar.underground.se.axis.com> References: <20071003145848.GG16132@edgar.underground.se.axis.com> <200710221653.l9MGrdTQ021458@ignucius.se.axis.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200710221653.l9MGrdTQ021458@ignucius.se.axis.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-10/txt/msg00522.txt.bz2 On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 06:53:39PM +0200, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 16:58:48 +0200 > > From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" > > > I noticed that the condition code flags were not tested for > > move-like insns on CRIS. > > Thanks for looking into this. Yes, the test_move_cc macro was > totally fudged. I can only guess I stubbed it and meant to > revisit that part but just forgot. > > Your change adds code to just test N and Z though the intention > of test_move_cc is to also test C and V, for pre-v32. When > fixing that, I had to adjust the jsr testcase as seen. I also > noticed that there were more flaws in the neg test; the V and C > flags should always be tested as it's an arithmetic insn and the > formerly unused/untested values for V and C were wrong. Noting > the lack of non-arithmetic V and C tests for v32, I added a new > test-case to check that V and C aren't affected for v32, for > some common insns and values. I'm not claiming full coverage > there, just better than not testing V and C for v32 at all for > those insns. Thanks for taking care of all this H-P. Best regards -- Edgar E. Iglesias Axis Communications AB