From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3259 invoked by alias); 6 Sep 2012 08:54:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 3246 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Sep 2012 08:54:05 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED 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; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 08:53:52 +0000 From: "rguenther at suse dot de" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug testsuite/54184] [4.8 Regression] gcc.dg/pr52558-1.c failure Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 08:54:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: testsuite X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.0 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-09/txt/msg00432.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54184 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2012-09-06 08:53:36 UTC --- On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54184 > > Aldy Hernandez changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org > |gnu.org | > > --- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-09-05 21:15:52 UTC --- > What I was trying to test here originally was whether the LIM pass kept a flag > of changes to "count" and only if the flag was true, allow the cached version > of "count" to be stored. > > Technically, I could get away with only checking the presence of count_lsm_flag > in the dump, though I realize that this also is an imperfect solution if a > previous pass changed things around. > > Apart from checking count_lsm_flag, the only thing I can think of is replacing > this test with one within the simulate-thread/ infrastructure that actually > checks that no caching occurs unless p->data > 0. Yes, that sounds like the proper solution. > Richard, which solution do you prefer, or do you recommend something else? Another way would be to make LIM emit something in the dump when it did a "conditional" hoisting as opposed to an un-conditional one and check that for the testcases the hoisting occurs but only conditional. Richard.