This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Amend dump expectation in slsr-8.c (PR, tree-optimization/71490)
> On Jul 15, 2016, at 2:24 AM, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Martin Liška <mliska@suse.cz> wrote:
>> On 07/14/2016 01:21 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Martin Liška <mliska@suse.cz> wrote:
>>>> On 07/13/2016 07:21 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>>> Isn't that a code quality regression? So instead shouldn't we be keeping the same expectation, but xfailing the test?
>>>>>
>>>>> jeff
>>>>
>>>> Hello.
>>>>
>>>> Disabling a pass before slsr makes the test to catch both opportunities.
>>>> Is the patch fine?
>>>
>>> No, this is still a code quality regression. What happens is that for
>>> some reason we fail to sink for GCC 6.
>>
>> So should I just mark the test-case as a xfail?
>
> Leave it FAIL and open a bug. We need to fix SLSR to handle the situation.
Please CC me on the bug (wschmidt@gcc.gnu.org).
Thanks,
Bill
>
> You can try going back to the point where the testcase was added and look at the
> IL that it was supposed to test, on the GCC 6 branch we sink into one
> arm but not
> the other, on trunk we sink into both. Iff the original IL was
> without any sinking
> then adding a testcase variant with sinking turned off might be good as well.
>
> I'll also note that if we'd do these kind of tests as unit-tests we'd
> never notice
> that in real-world the testcase would have started failing due to
> previous passes
> messing up the IL.
>
> Richard.
>
>> M.
>>
>>>
>>> Richard.
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Martin
>>
>