From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-348105-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 10374 invoked by alias); 22 Feb 2011 10:56:51 -0000
Received: (qmail 10366 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Feb 2011 10:56:50 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 10:56:45 +0000
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/47838] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/foldconst-2.c scan-tree-dump-not optimized "fundamentals..0"
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Status Last reconfirmed Ever Confirmed
Message-ID: <bug-47838-4-p8kkxdLuNP@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-47838-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-47838-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 10:58:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-02/txt/msg02571.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47838

Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2011.02.22 10:56:25
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-22 10:56:25 UTC ---
IVOPTs chooses (again) some unfortunate IV that is enough to confuse the
tree-dump scan.

  ivtmp.6_6 = (long unsigned int) &fundamentals[1];

vs.

  ivtmp.6_6 = (long unsigned int) &fundamentals[0];

The folding that is tested for should happen at loop header copying time.

Can you check if

Index: testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/foldconst-2.c
===================================================================
--- testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/foldconst-2.c     (revision 170359)
+++ testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/foldconst-2.c     (working copy)
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 /* { dg-do compile } */
-/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-optimized" } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-ch" } */
 typedef union tree_node *tree;
 enum tree_code
 {
@@ -54,5 +54,5 @@ emit_support_tinfos (void)
 }
 /* We should copy loop header to fundamentals[0] and then fold it way into
    known value.  */
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "fundamentals.0" "optimized"} } */
-/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "optimized" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "fundamentals.0" "ch"} } */
+/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "ch" } } */

works for you (it does for me) and commit it if so?

Thanks.