On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 8:42 PM Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 10/24/2021 12:25 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > > On 10/24/21 6:57 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > > > >>> Ughhhh....we could put the test back, check for some random large > >>> number, and come up with a more satisfactory test later? ;-) > >> I thought our "counting" based tests could only check equality (ie, > >> expect to see this string precisely N times). Though if we could > >> check that # threads realized was > some low water mark, that'd > >> probably be better than what we've got right now. > > > > Andrew actually had a patch for a dejagnu construct doing just that > > (scan-tree-dump-minimum), but I just noticed it didn't work quite > > right for this test. > > > > This is a bit embarrassing, but upon further analysis I've just > > noticed that the number of threadable candidates has been exploding > > over the year, but the ones that actually make it past the block > > copier restrictions plus rewire_first_differing_edge, etc, only > > changed by 1 with this patch. So perhaps we don't need to bend over > > backward (just yet anyhow). > > > > I can leave the simple gimple FE test since I've already coded it. > > Up to you. > I'd keep the gimple FE test. I can easily see coming back to this ;-) > > > > > How does this look? > Looks good for the trunk to me.
Thanks Jeff. I will commit the other patch from this series as well as the testsuite change, both of which you approved. Also, I was going to commit the following as obvious until I noticed it depended on the other patches: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-October/582232.html I think it's now obvious, but if you have an objection, let me know. It'll be a while, cause I need to rest everything again on x86 and ppc64. I'm tired of getting mail from CI bots :). Thanks for your feedback and patience. Aldy
