8038953,Add sanity tests for BMI1 and LZCNT instructions

[Anton Ivanov]

Here is the new webrev 
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iignatyev/aaivanov/8038953/webrev.01
tests directory renamed to verifycode
skipping on not-target platform
negative check (for "Unexpected CPU instructions found") removed


On 01.04.2014 23:56, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> Okay, I see that you do use code from Filipp's changes (for example, 
> TestAndnI.AndnIExpr).
>
> I think subdir name 'sanity' is not accurate and too general.
> Something like 'verifycode' or similar is more reasonable.
>
> Why you not bailing out (skip test) in main() (or in test()) when 
> intrinsic is not used?
>
> An asm instruction could be used without intrinsic. It all depends on 
> mach instructions matching rules in implementation in .ad file. So 
> your  AssertionError "Unexpected CPU instructions found: " could be 
> triggered. Also what if C1 also generate such code? I don't know why 
> you have this assert.
>
> I think you need to add WB API to get info if a particular intrinsic 
> was really used. Even if you pass UseCountTrailingZerosInstruction 
> flag it could be overwritten by InlineNatives flag. There could be 
> other legit reasons we don't use an intrinsic.
>
> On 4/1/14 10:51 AM, Anton Ivanov wrote:
>> Hi Vladimir,
>>
>> They test different things,
>> Fillip's tests - verify results to be the same for compiler and
>> interpreter (but imagine compiler do not use intrinsic at all, test will
>> pass too, because they will do exactly the same operations)
>
> It is not true. Even when it is not intrinsic JIT still generates 
> assembler code which could be problematic.
>
> Thanks,
> Vladimir
>
>> My tests verify only that certain asm instructions are presented in
>> native code emitted by compiler (but do not verify the correctness of
>> execution)
>> Combination of these 2 sets of tests makes sure that new instructions
>> are really used, and used correctly.
>> It also was not easy to modify Fillip's tests because they were
>> developed in parallel
>>
>>
>> combination of these 2 sets give us
>>
>> On 01.04.2014 21:03, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>>> I mean why do you need to create separate tests and not use (add new
>>> code) existing one?
>>> For example, you added bmi/sanity/AddnTestI.java when there is already
>>> bmi/TestAndnI.java.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Vladimir
>>>
>>> On 4/1/14 9:57 AM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>>>> Anton,
>>>>
>>>> How your changes relate to Filipp's?:
>>>>
>>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/hs-comp/hotspot/rev/15d507abfc7a
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Vladimir
>>>>
>>>> On 4/1/14 9:40 AM, Anton Ivanov wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please review the patch
>>>>>
>>>>> New tests for using of blsi,blsr,andn,blsmsk,lzcnt,tzcnt
>>>>> instructions were developed.
>>>>> They verify that instructions above are really presented in emitted
>>>>> native code on supported hardware
>>>>>
>>>>> webrev:
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iignatyev/aaivanov/8038953/webrev.00
>>>>> jbs: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8038953
>>>>> testing: test/compiler/intrinsics/bmi/sanity
>>>>>
>>

-- 
Best regards,
Anton Ivanov