On 10/24/21 6:57 PM, Jeff Law wrote:

>> Ughhhh....we could put the test back, check for some random large 
>> number, and come up with a more satisfactory test later? ;-)
> I thought our "counting" based tests could only check equality (ie, 
> expect to see this string precisely N times).  Though if we could check 
> that # threads realized was > some low water mark, that'd probably be 
> better than what we've got right now.

Andrew actually had a patch for a dejagnu construct doing just that 
(scan-tree-dump-minimum), but I just noticed it didn't work quite right 
for this test.

This is a bit embarrassing, but upon further analysis I've just noticed 
that the number of threadable candidates has been exploding over the 
year, but the ones that actually make it past the block copier 
restrictions plus rewire_first_differing_edge, etc, only changed by 1 
with this patch.  So perhaps we don't need to bend over backward (just 
yet anyhow).

I can leave the simple gimple FE test since I've already coded it.   Up 
to you.

How does this look?

Aldy