Re: [tree-ssa, LNO] Analysis of scalar evolutions and data dependences

[law at redhat dot com]

In message <20031217095357.GB24070@gauvain.u-strasbg.fr>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pop_S=
E9bastian?= writes:
 >On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 09:36:06PM -0700, law@redhat.com wrote:
 >> I really don't think this is the right way to go because the dumps
 >> change if we suddenly use an extra temporary during gimplification,
 >> or delete a PHI and recycle an SSA_NAME that wasn't recycled before,
 >> or due to addresses of temporary variables changing, etc etc.
 >> 
 >
 >If an analyzer does not dump data that is susceptible to change
 >independently of its behavior, the diffing of the dump could be a good
 >strategy for testing.
Sorry, I should have been more specific.  If you're looking at detail
data emitted by the pass rather than the C-like representation of the
function, then this may be a reasonable scheme.  If you go that
direction your biggest problem is likely the fact that the C-like dump
files and the dump details for a pass are in the same file.

 >> Instead I would ask that you look into how to expand the testing
 >> infrastructure to allow you do write tests more reasonably without
 >> just diffing the dump files.
 >> 
 >
 >Okay, I will try to find a better strategy for testing the analyzers
 >outputs.  
As you get ideas, do feel free to bounce them off me -- I don't need it
immediately, but I'm on the lookout for a good way to do testing of
code motions.

jeff