Replying to an older patch ([PATCH] Fix failing test-case)

Replying to an older patch ([PATCH] Fix failing test-case)

[Sudakshina Das]

https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-10/msg01157.html

This patch fixed a test case switch-case-2.c. I am seeing 
switch-case-1.c failing on

arm-none-linux-gnueabihf:
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/switch-case-1.c scan-rtl-dump-times expand ";; 
basic block[^\\n]*count 2000" 1 (found 0 times)

aarch64-none-linux-gnu:
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/switch-case-1.c scan-rtl-dump-times expand ";; 
basic block[^\\n]*count 2000" 1 (found 2 times)

which looks pretty similar (also the same changes make it pass). Can you 
confirm?

Sudi

Re: Replying to an older patch ([PATCH] Fix failing test-case)

[Sudakshina Das]

On 30/11/17 11:03, Sudakshina Das wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-10/msg01157.html
>
> This patch fixed a test case switch-case-2.c. I am seeing
> switch-case-1.c failing on
>
> arm-none-linux-gnueabihf:
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/switch-case-1.c scan-rtl-dump-times expand ";;
> basic block[^\\n]*count 2000" 1 (found 0 times)
>
> aarch64-none-linux-gnu:
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/switch-case-1.c scan-rtl-dump-times expand ";;
> basic block[^\\n]*count 2000" 1 (found 2 times)
>
> which looks pretty similar (also the same changes make it pass). Can you
> confirm?
>
> Sudi

Put wrong email address earlier. And adding more people on cc

Re: Replying to an older patch ([PATCH] Fix failing test-case)

[Martin Liška]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 657 bytes --]

On 11/30/2017 12:03 PM, Sudakshina Das wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-10/msg01157.html
> 
> This patch fixed a test case switch-case-2.c. I am seeing switch-case-1.c failing on
> 
> arm-none-linux-gnueabihf:
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/switch-case-1.c scan-rtl-dump-times expand ";; basic block[^\\n]*count 2000" 1 (found 0 times)
> 
> aarch64-none-linux-gnu:
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/switch-case-1.c scan-rtl-dump-times expand ";; basic block[^\\n]*count 2000" 1 (found 2 times)
> 
> which looks pretty similar (also the same changes make it pass). Can you confirm?
> 
> Sudi

Hello.

There's patch for that. Can you please test it?

Martin

[-- Attachment #2: 0001-Fix-another-failing-test-case.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1505 bytes --]

From e4570be2df2c2fd62d21bca829376670cbb96dc2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: marxin <mliska@suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 11:47:56 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Fix another failing test-case.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

2017-12-19  Martin Liska  <mliska@suse.cz>

	* gcc.dg/tree-prof/switch-case-1.c: Scan IPA profile dump
	file instead of expand in order to not mix it with expanded
	tree decision tree for the switch statement.
---
 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/switch-case-1.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/switch-case-1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/switch-case-1.c
index 6a9af083a9a..a5a430a8ed5 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/switch-case-1.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/switch-case-1.c
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-rtl-expand-all" } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-ipa-profile-all" } */
 int g;
 
 __attribute__((noinline)) void foo (int  n)
@@ -36,5 +36,5 @@ int main ()
  return 0;
 }
 /* autofdo cannot do that precise execution numbers */
-/* { dg-final-use-not-autofdo { scan-rtl-dump-times ";; basic block\[^\\n\]*count 4000" 2 "expand"} } */
-/* { dg-final-use-not-autofdo { scan-rtl-dump-times ";; basic block\[^\\n\]*count 2000" 1 "expand"} } */
+/* { dg-final-use-not-autofdo { scan-ipa-dump-times ";;   basic block\[^\\n\]*count 4000" 2 "profile"} } */
+/* { dg-final-use-not-autofdo { scan-ipa-dump-times ";;   basic block\[^\\n\]*count 2000" 1 "profile"} } */
-- 
2.14.3

Re: Replying to an older patch ([PATCH] Fix failing test-case)

[Sudakshina Das]

Hi Martin

On 19/12/17 10:49, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 11/30/2017 12:03 PM, Sudakshina Das wrote:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-10/msg01157.html
>>
>> This patch fixed a test case switch-case-2.c. I am seeing switch-case-1.c failing on
>>
>> arm-none-linux-gnueabihf:
>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/switch-case-1.c scan-rtl-dump-times expand ";; basic block[^\\n]*count 2000" 1 (found 0 times)
>>
>> aarch64-none-linux-gnu:
>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/switch-case-1.c scan-rtl-dump-times expand ";; basic block[^\\n]*count 2000" 1 (found 2 times)
>>
>> which looks pretty similar (also the same changes make it pass). Can you confirm?
>>
>> Sudi
> 
> Hello.
> 
> There's patch for that. Can you please test it?
>

I have tested these changes and the test case passes for both 
arm-none-linux-gnueabihf and aarch64-none-linux-gnu.

Thanks
Sudi

> Martin
> 

Re: Replying to an older patch ([PATCH] Fix failing test-case)

[Martin Liška]

On 12/19/2017 02:03 PM, Sudakshina Das wrote:
> Hi Martin
> 
> On 19/12/17 10:49, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 11/30/2017 12:03 PM, Sudakshina Das wrote:
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-10/msg01157.html
>>>
>>> This patch fixed a test case switch-case-2.c. I am seeing switch-case-1.c failing on
>>>
>>> arm-none-linux-gnueabihf:
>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/switch-case-1.c scan-rtl-dump-times expand ";; basic block[^\\n]*count 2000" 1 (found 0 times)
>>>
>>> aarch64-none-linux-gnu:
>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/switch-case-1.c scan-rtl-dump-times expand ";; basic block[^\\n]*count 2000" 1 (found 2 times)
>>>
>>> which looks pretty similar (also the same changes make it pass). Can you confirm?
>>>
>>> Sudi
>>
>> Hello.
>>
>> There's patch for that. Can you please test it?
>>
> 
> I have tested these changes and the test case passes for both arm-none-linux-gnueabihf and aarch64-none-linux-gnu.

Good, thanks for testing. It's quite obvious patch and I'm going to install it.

Martin

> 
> Thanks
> Sudi
> 
>> Martin
>>
>