[m-rev.] for review: pack small args next to local secondary tags

[Julien Fischer]

On Sat, 14 Jul 2018, Zoltan Somogyi wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2018 12:44:14 -0400 (EDT), Julien Fischer <jfischer at opturion.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2018, Zoltan Somogyi wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 21:14:22 -0400 (EDT), Julien Fischer <jfischer at opturion.com> wrote:
>>>> Specifically, in asm_fast.gc.decldebug.trseg.stseg, the following
>>>> fail on my system (x86-64,linux):
>>>>
>>>>     hard_coded/arith_int16
>>>>     hard_coded/arith_int32
>>>>     hard_coded/arith_int8
>>>>     hard_coded/pack_int32
>>>>
>>>> The packing one is most likely failing bcause the arithmetic ones are.
>>>> (This looks like a regression of the issue fixed in commit b765dae,
>>>> but it isn't since the test case for that passes.)
>>>
>>> The attached diff fixes these failures.
>>
>> As of rotd-2018-07-14 the last one of those is still failing for me.
>>
>> diff -u pack_int32.exp pack_int32.out
>> --- pack_int32.exp      2018-05-16 20:06:06.000000000 -0400
>> +++ pack_int32.out      2018-07-14 12:39:16.000000000 -0400
>> @@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
>> -struct(-2147483648, 2147483647, -32768, 32767)
>> +struct(-2147483648, -32768, 990059265, 25)
>>   struct(-2147483648, 2147483647, -32768, 32767)
>>   struct(-2147483648, 2147483647, -32768, 32767)
>>
>> (Same grade and system as above.)
>
> It passed for me in asm_fast.gc.decldebug.stseg, i.e. NOT trseg,
> but trailing should have no bearing on this.

I'd hope not.

> Did the failure happen with allow_packing_* enabled or disabled?

Disabled.  (I was just doing runtests in that grade, so all the
options should be the default for that test.)

> And can you confirm that you were generating 64 bit code,
> not 32 bit?

Yes, 64-bit code.

Julien.