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.
