> On 06/07/2016 09:27 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > There are bugs in few predictors - goto predictor is dead because the FE > > code was dropped, > > return predictor is bit random because CFG is optimized (it should probably > > be done in FE), > > loop iv compare seems bogus and fortran fail alloc does not seem to work as > > intended. > > I added FIXME and will addres them incrementally. > > Hi. > > I've investigated why 'loop iv compare heuristics' provides bogus values and > I've just created > PR for that: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71474 > > And I would like to apply following patch, that adds 'XFAIL' test-case > described in the PR and > I would distinguish scanning for 'loop iv compare' and 'guess loop iv > compare'. > > Can I install the patch? > Thanks, > Martin >
> >From 6272402f76d4e6ff496d55e9a4fac7ee9a696e4e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: marxin <mli...@suse.cz> > Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 16:53:32 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH] Make 'loop iv compare' heuristics scanning more precise in > test-suite > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > 2016-06-09 Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz> > > * gcc.dg/predict-1.c: Distinguish between "loop iv compare" > and "guess loop iv compared" heuristics. > * gcc.dg/predict-2.c: Likewise. > * gcc.dg/predict-3.c: Likewise. > * gcc.dg/predict-4.c: Likewise. > * gcc.dg/predict-5.c: Likewise. > * gcc.dg/predict-6.c: Likewise. > * gfortran.dg/predict-1.f90: New test. I think the usual strategy is to add testcases once PR is fixed (so failures track regressions). So please just fix the predict-?.c templates and leave predict-1.f90 to go with the patch (I see you arleady proposed one in the PR log. OK for the predict-?.c changes. Thanks, Honza
