On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Richard Biener > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> I believe this tests has been wrongly modified previously. It is to test >>> that the exit check on >>> pointer shouldn't be replaced by integer IV. Somehow GCC starts replacing >>> the check on >>> integer IV with pointer IV. It's valid, though inefficient. And somehow >>> we starting checking >>> this iv replacement. This patch rectifies it by specifically checking the >>> check on pointer >>> shouldn't be replaced. >> >> So maybe it should then test that the pointer test prevails? Or >> rather that it doesn't replace >> any exit test? If 'p' changes for '_2' for unrelated reasons the >> pattern will be not testing what >> it is supposed to test... > Thanks for reviewing, I updated patch testing if condition on p_limit2 > still exists before expanding. Is it OK?
Ok. Richard. > Thanks, > bin >> >> Richard. >> >>> Bootstrap and test in series on x86_64. Is it OK? >>> Thanks, >>> bin >>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog >>> 2017-05-11 Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> >>> >>> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ivopt_mult_4.c: Explicitly check comparison >>> on pointer should not be replaced.
