On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 10:38 AM Thomas Schwinge <tho...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > > Hi! > > On 2022-10-21T00:44:30+0200, Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 9:22 PM Thomas Schwinge <tho...@codesourcery.com> > > wrote: > >> "Add 'gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr107195-3.c' [PR107195]" attached? > > > > I see 7 different tests in this patch. Did the 6 that pass, fail > > before my patch for PR107195 and are now working? Cause unless > > that's the case, they shouldn't be in a test named pr107195-3.c, but > > somewhere else. > > That's correct; I should've mentioned that I had verified this. With the > code changes of commit r13-3217-gc4d15dddf6b9eacb36f535807ad2ee364af46e04 > "[PR107195] Set range to zero when nonzero mask is 0" reverted, we get: > > PASS: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr107195-3.c (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr107195-3.c scan-tree-dump-times dom3 "gimple_call > <foo1," 1 > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr107195-3.c scan-tree-dump-times dom3 "gimple_call > <foo2," 1 > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr107195-3.c scan-tree-dump-times dom3 "gimple_call > <foo3," 1 > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr107195-3.c scan-tree-dump-times dom3 "gimple_call > <foo4," 1 > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr107195-3.c scan-tree-dump-times dom3 "gimple_call > <foo5," 1 > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr107195-3.c scan-tree-dump-times dom3 "gimple_call > <foo6," 1 > > ..., and in 'pr107195-3.c.196t.dom3' instead see two calls of each > 'foo[...]' function. > > That's with this... > > > I see there's one XFAILed test in your patch > > ... XFAILed test case removed, see the attached > "Add 'gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr107195-3.c' [PR107195]"; > OK now to push that version?
OK, thanks.
