Hi.
As mentioned in the PR, it's not clear which BB removal are we seeking
for. Thus I would remove that scan.
The test-case works on x86_64-linux-gnu.
Ready for trunk?
Thanks,
Martin
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2018-05-25 Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz>
PR testsuite/85911
* gcc.dg/tree-prof/update-loopch.c: Do not scan
for 'Removing basic block'.
---
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/update-loopch.c | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/update-loopch.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/update-loopch.c
index 3b3ad980946..a30b895bb67 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/update-loopch.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/update-loopch.c
@@ -18,5 +18,4 @@ main ()
/* { dg-final-use-not-autofdo { scan-ipa-dump "loop depth 1, count 33334" "profile"} } */
/* { dg-final-use-not-autofdo { scan-tree-dump "loop depth 1, count 33333" "switchlower1"} } */
/* { dg-final-use-not-autofdo { scan-tree-dump-not "loop depth 1, count 33332" "switchlower1"} } */
-/* { dg-final-use-not-autofdo { scan-tree-dump "Removing basic block" "switchlower1"} } */
/* { dg-final-use { scan-tree-dump-not "Invalid sum" "switchlower1"} } */
