Re: [PATCH 2/2] RISC-V/testsuite: Also verify if-conversion runs for pr105314.c

[Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>]

On 1/24/24 04:26, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2024, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> 
>>> I don't have a strong opinion on this.  I certainly see Andrew's point, but
>>> it's also the case that if some work earlier in the RTL or gimple pipeline
>>> comes along and compromises the test, then we'd see the failure and deal with
>>> it.  It's pretty standard procedure.
>>
>>   I'll be happy to add an RTL test case, also for my recent complementary
>> cset-sext.c addition and maybe other if-conversion pieces recently added.
>> I think that does not preclude arming pr105314.c with RTL scanning though.
> 
>   I have made a buch of testcases as we discussed at the meeting last week
> and the RTL parser did not blow up, so I have now submitted them.  See:
> <patches-gcc/https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/643802.html>
> and the next two messages (threading broke with this submission for some
> reason, probably due to a glitch in my mail client I've seen from time to
> time; I guess it's not worth it to get the patch series resubmitted as
> they are independent from each other really and can be applied in any
> order).
> 
>   I haven't heard back from Andrew beyond his initial message, so it's not
> clear to me whether he maintains his objection in spite the arguments
> given.  Andrew?
> 
>   Do we have consensus now to move forward with this change as posted?  I'd
> like to get these patches ticked off ASAP.
I think it should move forward.  I think having the RTL tests deals with 
Andrew's concern and the testcase adjustment has value as well.

I ACK's the RTL tests a few minutes ago and we should consider the 1/2 
and 2/2 of the original OK now as well.

Thanks,
Jeff