From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 114632 invoked by alias); 31 May 2017 13:32:29 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 114568 invoked by uid 89); 31 May 2017 13:32:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mail-oi0-f50.google.com Received: from mail-oi0-f50.google.com (HELO mail-oi0-f50.google.com) (209.85.218.50) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 31 May 2017 13:32:26 +0000 Received: by mail-oi0-f50.google.com with SMTP id w10so15286554oif.0 for ; Wed, 31 May 2017 06:32:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=KjnGy8Am6segtjiIHEEXQhOkd5Ppos1JxfKNyy7OY2c=; b=fPcD+/2BDMskMAnEVP6zlZYuCXUPgHv0sA7p9s6l0ae8F/uEW4dgNtU9OtRhhD27Vy XqSN2F0IkO/AwOKt23DzNVqoOYQINERvjO4g/DjUVZfWbvek8wgRF1VcG97/o7f+ZDsj C/1gQvaP8tLJ7eEexARv8TsK15M2jfOjvVDGXFlL0ektwmHrn8g9VnYh/wBSlHnaBwHQ PpfPEC1xrcLuw+y3U9MlCEgpB+0g4a2phHo9GFQBdzygAQBD38WqUfUvFxEmJexXK471 /JOA875L755ufmqb+2hX+mQuKWgTUj1sgEvb+sAy8wvWEmRNUEEyEAH/RD3Qlq+D6jbQ DRog== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAOkxYg248EQG9nl2dzZ8M8JA7x3izeHFWDz/WyLtZPnKkp27uT wZFFmUhtgzrSGcUh4J0fNrEcy/4X4lMW X-Received: by 10.202.205.196 with SMTP id d187mr12193341oig.6.1496237549069; Wed, 31 May 2017 06:32:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.157.51.83 with HTTP; Wed, 31 May 2017 06:32:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Richard Biener Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 13:34:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH TEST]Rectify test case gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ivopt_mult_4.c To: "Bin.Cheng" Cc: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-05/txt/msg02359.txt.bz2 On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Richard Biener > wrote: >> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: >>> Hi, >>> I believe this tests has been wrongly modified previously. It is to test that the exit check on >>> pointer shouldn't be replaced by integer IV. Somehow GCC starts replacing the check on >>> integer IV with pointer IV. It's valid, though inefficient. And somehow we starting checking >>> this iv replacement. This patch rectifies it by specifically checking the check on pointer >>> shouldn't be replaced. >> >> So maybe it should then test that the pointer test prevails? Or >> rather that it doesn't replace >> any exit test? If 'p' changes for '_2' for unrelated reasons the >> pattern will be not testing what >> it is supposed to test... > Thanks for reviewing, I updated patch testing if condition on p_limit2 > still exists before expanding. Is it OK? Ok. Richard. > Thanks, > bin >> >> Richard. >> >>> Bootstrap and test in series on x86_64. Is it OK? >>> Thanks, >>> bin >>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog >>> 2017-05-11 Bin Cheng >>> >>> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ivopt_mult_4.c: Explicitly check comparison >>> on pointer should not be replaced.