* [PATCH] re PR tree-optimization/93210 (Sub-optimal code optimization on struct/combound constexpr (gcc vs. clang))
@ 2021-04-14 17:13 Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
2021-04-14 20:19 ` Jeff Law
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus @ 2021-04-14 17:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-patches
Regarding test gcc.dg/pr93210.c, on different targets GIMPLE code may
slightly differ which is why the scan-tree-dump-times directive may
fail. For example, for a RETURN_EXPR on x86_64 we have
return 0x11100f0e0d0c0a090807060504030201;
whereas on IBM Z the first operand is a RESULT_DECL like
<retval> = 0x102030405060708090a0c0d0e0f1011;
return <retval>;
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.dg/pr93210.c: Adapt regex in order to also support a
RESULT_DECL as an operand for a RETURN_EXPR.
Ok for mainline?
---
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr93210.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr93210.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr93210.c
index ec4194b6b49..134d32bc505 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr93210.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr93210.c
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
/* PR tree-optimization/93210 */
/* { dg-do run } */
/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-optimized" } */
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "return \[0-9]\[0-9a-fA-FxX]*;" 31 "optimized" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "(?:return|<retval> =) \[0-9]\[0-9a-fA-FxX]*;" 31 "optimized" } } */
#ifdef __SIZEOF_INT128__
typedef unsigned __int128 L;
--
2.23.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] re PR tree-optimization/93210 (Sub-optimal code optimization on struct/combound constexpr (gcc vs. clang))
2021-04-14 17:13 [PATCH] re PR tree-optimization/93210 (Sub-optimal code optimization on struct/combound constexpr (gcc vs. clang)) Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
@ 2021-04-14 20:19 ` Jeff Law
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Law @ 2021-04-14 20:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus, gcc-patches
On 4/14/2021 11:13 AM, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Regarding test gcc.dg/pr93210.c, on different targets GIMPLE code may
> slightly differ which is why the scan-tree-dump-times directive may
> fail. For example, for a RETURN_EXPR on x86_64 we have
>
> return 0x11100f0e0d0c0a090807060504030201;
>
> whereas on IBM Z the first operand is a RESULT_DECL like
>
> <retval> = 0x102030405060708090a0c0d0e0f1011;
> return <retval>;
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * gcc.dg/pr93210.c: Adapt regex in order to also support a
> RESULT_DECL as an operand for a RETURN_EXPR.
>
> Ok for mainline?
OK
jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-04-14 20:19 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-04-14 17:13 [PATCH] re PR tree-optimization/93210 (Sub-optimal code optimization on struct/combound constexpr (gcc vs. clang)) Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
2021-04-14 20:19 ` Jeff Law
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).