| Message ID | 50EE4E5E.2060400@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote: > > Gary Funck noted that vrp06.c has two tests with the same output. After > further investigation it was clear that expected output strings were too > lenient and were in fact masking a missed optimization. > > This patch tightens the expected output from the vrp dump which has the side > effect of making each test's string unique. Obviously the masked failure is > xfailed. > > OK for the trunk? Hmm, but if the SSA versions are simply i_10 then i_.*0 will still match it the same? I think you want the more elaborate 'i_\[0-9\]* . 0' here? Please also open a bug for the added XFAIL. Thanks, Richard. > Thanks, > Jeff > > * gcc/dg/tree-ssa/vrp06.c: Tighten expected output. Make each > pass/fail message unique. > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp06.c > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp06.c > index 1ef6c92..4edca36 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp06.c > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp06.c > @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ foo (int i, int j, int a) > return i + a + j; > } > > -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Folding predicate i_.*to 0" 1 "vrp1" > } } */ > -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Folding predicate j_.*to 1" 1 "vrp1" > } } */ > -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Folding predicate i_.*to 0" 1 "vrp1" > } } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Folding predicate i_.*0 to 0" 1 > "vrp1" } } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Folding predicate j_.*0 to 1" 1 > "vrp1" } } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Folding predicate i_.*j_.* to 0" 1 > "vrp1" { xfail *-*-* } } } */ > /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "vrp1" } } */ >
On 01/10/2013 03:13 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> > Hmm, but if the SSA versions are simply i_10 then i_.*0 will still match it > the same? I think you want the more elaborate 'i_\[0-9\]* . 0' here? Per Uros's suggestion I'm using i[0-9]+ to ensure we one or more digits. > > Please also open a bug for the added XFAIL. 55936. Not sure if it's a regression or not -- Diego changed the relevant code in tree-ssa-vrp around 2006. I didn't build a compiler from that era to see if VRP caught everything in one pass. jeff
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp06.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp06.c index 1ef6c92..4edca36 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp06.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp06.c @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ foo (int i, int j, int a) return i + a + j; } -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Folding predicate i_.*to 0" 1 "vrp1" } } */ -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Folding predicate j_.*to 1" 1 "vrp1" } } */ -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Folding predicate i_.*to 0" 1 "vrp1" } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Folding predicate i_.*0 to 0" 1 "vrp1" } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Folding predicate j_.*0 to 1" 1 "vrp1" } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Folding predicate i_.*j_.* to 0" 1 "vrp1" { xfail *-*-* } } } */ /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "vrp1" } } */