This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Location of "dg-final" directives? (was Re: [PATCH][GCC] Algorithmic optimization in match and simplify)




On 01/09/15 17:54, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 12:50:27PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
I can't comment on the patch itself, but I noticed that in the testsuite
addition, you've gathered all the "dg-final" clauses at the end.

I think that this is consistent with existing practice in gcc, but
AFAIK, the dg-final clauses can appear anywhere in the file.

Would it make test cases more readable if we put the dg-final clauses
next to the code that they relate to?  Or, at least after the function
that they relate to?

For example:

   unsigned short
   foo (unsigned short a)
   {
     a ^= 0x4002;
     a >>= 1;
     a |= 0x8000; /* Simplify to ((a >> 1) ^ 0xa001).  */
     return a;
   }
   /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "\\^ 40961" "forwprop1" } } */

   unsigned short
   bar (unsigned short a)
   {
       /* snip */ /* Simplify to ((a << 1) | 0x8005).  */
   }
   /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "\\| 32773" "forwprop1" } } */

   ... etc ...

I think this may be more readable than the "group them all at the end of
the file approach", especially with testcases with many files and
dg-final directives.

Yeah, it's probably somewhat more readable.  Same for dg-output.  E.g. some
ubsan tests already use dg-outputs after functions they relate to.

	Marek


If no one objects Ill make those changes too. Sounds reasonable to me.

Andre


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]