[Bug lto/60061] New: Different dump-ipa-cp-details without/with -flto for gfortran.dg/pr53787.f90

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60061

            Bug ID: 60061
           Summary: Different dump-ipa-cp-details without/with -flto for
                    gfortran.dg/pr53787.f90
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.9.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: lto
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
                CC: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

The outputs pr53787_lto.f90.046i.cp of 

gfortran /opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr53787.f90 -S -O3
-fdump-ipa-cp-details -fno-inline -fwhole-program

and

gfortran /opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr53787.f90 -S -O3
-fdump-ipa-cp-details -fno-inline -fwhole-program -flto

differ. In particular the regexps in the test are no longer present with -flto:

...
-Evaluating opportunities for init/0.
- - Creating a specialized node of init/0 for all known contexts.
-      cannot change function signature
-     the new node is init_.constprop.0/8.
-     Aggregate replacements: 1[0]=10
-
-Evaluating opportunities for init/0.
-  Marking node as dead: init/0.
+Evaluating opportunities for init_/0.
...
-Modification phase of node init_.constprop.0/8
-     Aggregate replacements: 1[0]=10
-Modifying stmt:
-  _2 = *n_1(D);
-into:
-  _2 = 10;
+  <bb 3>:
...

Is this expected? If yes, are there better regexps to scan?