From patchwork Sun Nov 11 18:26:32 2012 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Jan Hubicka X-Patchwork-Id: 198288 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 833592C0079 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 05:26:39 +1100 (EST) Comment: DKIM? See http://www.dkim.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; x=1353263201; h=Comment: DomainKey-Signature:Received:Received:Received:Received:Date: From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Disposition:User-Agent:Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender: Delivered-To; bh=tJtcueNVKtVgvWAIoVMIq+4XBO4=; b=NJELW2eqYtiGZGx 6U2EYQjb1hgtsMJda7M7uNLuQmRLNq84JQ49ndt9Xti/wQ5geKIvCM+eMQ4pG87X IItYEJb+8cIG6aWb9PwcaTjt1Nk2AKLlBfjf+VgHGTDBYDQv4os+4bBAv9MmvBYm E88FVlDZAlPhxgDqRN99oA3yK9no= Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gcc.gnu.org; h=Received:Received:X-SWARE-Spam-Status:X-Spam-Check-By:Received:Received:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:User-Agent:Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; b=V+T8PV/AH9yY/VQksO+2kolY1z94QXQsiox+gXlzZIKZiDNuupAFXFDVBIkL5/ 3OVcAmwahfSPn7EZ6uo92A2Y4s/Fyl73f1K3WH2B2DqzPS8P3TVyaas/FDbAgFWj Aw1ickmZmUShzf0TDlNUA9zMC7oOaOD2fIO6FiijdeHKA=; Received: (qmail 9523 invoked by alias); 11 Nov 2012 18:26:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 9515 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Nov 2012 18:26:37 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00, KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W, RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL, RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz (HELO nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz) (195.113.20.16) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:26:33 +0000 Received: by nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz (Postfix, from userid 16202) id 96E5D543B91; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:26:32 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:26:32 +0100 From: Jan Hubicka To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Fix cunroll-1.c testcase Message-ID: <20121111182632.GA31473@kam.mff.cuni.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Hi, the cunroll-1.c testcase has bogus count on number of unrollings needed. This is my mistake: I originally introudced the testcase for cunroll pass where the number is different due to loop header copying. Regtested x86_64-linux, comitted. Honza Index: ChangeLog =================================================================== --- ChangeLog (revision 193405) +++ ChangeLog (working copy) @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ +2012-11-10 Jan Hubicka + + * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/cunroll-1.c: Fix bogus testcase. + 2012-11-10 H.J. Lu * gcc.target/i386/pr55247.c: Require maybe_x32 target. Add Index: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/cunroll-1.c =================================================================== --- gcc.dg/tree-ssa/cunroll-1.c (revision 193405) +++ gcc.dg/tree-ssa/cunroll-1.c (working copy) @@ -8,6 +8,6 @@ test(int c) a[i]=5; } /* Array bounds says the loop will not roll much. */ -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "Unrolled loop 1 completely .duplicated 1 times.." "cunrolli"} } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "Unrolled loop 1 completely .duplicated 2 times.." "cunrolli"} } */ /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "Last iteration exit edge was proved true." "cunrolli"} } */ /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "cunrolli" } } */