As diagnosed by Andrew in the linked PR, when reversing the branch
condition to work around lack of some cbranch instructions, we must
use swap_condition rather than reverse_condition.
PR target/122141
gcc/
* config/bpf/bpf.cc (bpf_expand_cbranch): Use swap_condition
rather than reverse_condition when reversing jump condition to
work around missing instructions in very old BPF ISAs.
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.target/bpf/pr122141-1.c: New.
* gcc.target/bpf/pr122141-2.c: New.
Suggested-by: Andrew Pinski <andrew.pinski@oss.qualcomm.com>
if ((code == LT || code == LE || code == LTU || code == LEU))
{
/* Reverse the condition. */
- PUT_CODE (operands[0], reverse_condition (code));
+ PUT_CODE (operands[0], swap_condition (code));
/* Swap the operands, and ensure that the first is a register. */
if (!register_operand (operands[2], mode))
--- /dev/null
+/* PR122141 miscompilation when j(s)l[te] unavailable. */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -mcpu=v1 -masm=normal" } */
+
+int
+f(long a, long b)
+{
+ return a > b ? 2 : 3;
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "jsge\t%r2,%r1" } } */
--- /dev/null
+/* PR122141 miscompilation when j(s)l[te] unavailable. */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -mcpu=v1 -masm=normal" } */
+
+int
+g(unsigned long a, unsigned long b)
+{
+ return a >= b ? 4 : 5;
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "jgt\t%r2,%r1" } } */