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? 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.