| Message ID | VI1PR0802MB2176BDEBA40D883F11CF43B4E7FF0@VI1PR0802MB2176.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Bin Cheng <Bin.Cheng@arm.com> wrote: > Hi, > I believe this tests has been wrongly modified previously. It is to test that the exit check on > pointer shouldn't be replaced by integer IV. Somehow GCC starts replacing the check on > integer IV with pointer IV. It's valid, though inefficient. And somehow we starting checking > this iv replacement. This patch rectifies it by specifically checking the check on pointer > shouldn't be replaced. So maybe it should then test that the pointer test prevails? Or rather that it doesn't replace any exit test? If 'p' changes for '_2' for unrelated reasons the pattern will be not testing what it is supposed to test... Richard. > Bootstrap and test in series on x86_64. Is it OK? > Thanks, > bin > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog > 2017-05-11 Bin Cheng <bin.cheng@arm.com> > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ivopt_mult_4.c: Explicitly check comparison > on pointer should not be replaced.
From e011b6952cc70a9582df51b672937934d4b85f29 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Bin Cheng <binche01@e108451-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:24:30 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 8/9] rectify-ivopt_mult_4.txt --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ivopt_mult_4.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ivopt_mult_4.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ivopt_mult_4.c index effb052..321c786 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ivopt_mult_4.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ivopt_mult_4.c @@ -21,4 +21,4 @@ long foo(long* p, long* p2, int N1, int N2) return s; } -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "Replacing exit test" "ivopts"} } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "Replacing exit test: if \\(p" "ivopts"} } */ -- 1.9.1