This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 03/17] Add test-cfg.c to gcc/unittests
- From: David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>
- To: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 13:55:04 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/17] Add test-cfg.c to gcc/unittests
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1433949898-22033-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm at redhat dot com> <1433949898-22033-4-git-send-email-dmalcolm at redhat dot com> <5589B0DA dot 1090605 at redhat dot com>
On Tue, 2015-06-23 at 13:17 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/10/2015 09:24 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > gcc/unittests/ChangeLog:
> > * test-cfg.c: New file.
> > ---
> > gcc/unittests/test-cfg.c | 319 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 319 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 gcc/unittests/test-cfg.c
> So this one would be a great place to check that the dominator code does
> something sensible if there's unreachable nodes in the CFG or the
> post-dominator code does something sensible with infinite loops, etc.
>
> I don't necessarily expect you to do this, just pointing it out.
>
> Just a nit, I noticed this included rtl.h, which seems a bit odd. Are
> those #includes relatively minimal or are they in need to cleanup?
Yes, they need to be cleaned up (I #included stuff until it compiled).
My plan is to minimize what these files #include once the more
controversial aspects of this patchkit are resolved - given that the
header files are in a state of flux, any minimization I attempt now is
likely to be out-of-date.