From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29717 invoked by alias); 10 Jan 2013 16:18:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 29704 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jan 2013 16:18:38 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_ZJ X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:18:32 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r0AGIVvn009015 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:18:31 -0500 Received: from stumpy.slc.redhat.com (ovpn-113-50.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.50]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r0AGIVFm013701; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:18:31 -0500 Message-ID: <50EEE9D6.1060008@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:18:00 -0000 From: Jeff Law User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Uros Bizjak CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Richard Biener Subject: Re: Minor testsuite improvement References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2013-01/txt/msg00553.txt.bz2 On 01/10/2013 03:31 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > Hello! > >>> This patch tightens the expected output from the vrp dump which has the side >>> effect of making each test's string unique. Obviously the masked failure is >>> xfailed. >>> >>> OK for the trunk? >> >> Hmm, but if the SSA versions are simply i_10 then i_.*0 will still match it >> the same? I think you want the more elaborate 'i_\[0-9\]* . 0' here? > > IMO 'i_\[0-9\]+' would be better, we need at least one digit here. Yea, this is a better regexp. I'll update and verify I get the right pass/xfails. jeff