[Bug testsuite/54184] [4.8 Regression] gcc.dg/pr52558-1.c failure

[rguenther at suse dot de]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54184

--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2012-09-06 08:53:36 UTC ---
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54184
> 
> Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
> 
>            What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>          AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot       |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
>                    |gnu.org                     |
> 
> --- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-05 21:15:52 UTC ---
> What I was trying to test here originally was whether the LIM pass kept a flag
> of changes to "count" and only if the flag was true, allow the cached version
> of "count" to be stored.
> 
> Technically, I could get away with only checking the presence of count_lsm_flag
> in the dump, though I realize that this also is an imperfect solution if a
> previous pass changed things around.
> 
> Apart from checking count_lsm_flag, the only thing I can think of is replacing
> this test with one within the simulate-thread/ infrastructure that actually
> checks that no caching occurs unless p->data > 0.

Yes, that sounds like the proper solution.

> Richard, which solution do you prefer, or do you recommend something else?

Another way would be to make LIM emit something in the dump when
it did a "conditional" hoisting as opposed to an un-conditional one
and check that for the testcases the hoisting occurs but only conditional.

Richard.