On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I believe this tests has been wrongly modified previously. It is to test
>>> that the exit check on
>>> pointer shouldn
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Bin Cheng 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
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Bin Cheng 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, thou
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 repl