On 3/25/25 5:17 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 03:33:59PM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote: >> Segher, any reason you can give on why we shouldn't go the easy route to >> "fix" (yes, these are air-quotes) this by using -fno-ipa-icf? > > One reason is that that option should not make any difference whatsoever > for a well-written testcase: a testcases that wants to test what insns > are generated for particular code, damn well should be written in such a > way that it is very unlikely the compiler will ever generate different > code for it. Another reason is I had to look up what that option with > the cryptical name does, what that names stands for. And finally, will > we be doing more maintenance on this later? Testcase maintenance is > wasted work, work that does not scale even, so it is important to write > testcases so that maintenance isn't needed, and if it becomes necessary > anyway to improve it so that it will not be needed so much in the > future.
I know there are reasons for wanting it split up, but do we really want to spend the development time splitting this old power7 test case up rather than just adding the -fno-ipa-icf option? You also didn't explicitly say which solution we should go with, so we're in a little limbo here. Peter
