On 07/13/2016 07:21 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > Isn't that a code quality regression? So instead shouldn't we be keeping the > same expectation, but xfailing the test? > > jeff
Hello. Disabling a pass before slsr makes the test to catch both opportunities. Is the patch fine? Thanks, Martin
>From 59e3c47ca4fad03a8152776ad5100eed7b610883 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: marxin <mli...@suse.cz> Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 13:02:05 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Amend dump expectation in slsr-8.c (PR tree-optimization/71490) gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-07-13 Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/slsr-8.c: Disable -ftree-sink pass. --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/slsr-8.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/slsr-8.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/slsr-8.c index 2bd60aa..557b798 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/slsr-8.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/slsr-8.c @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ /* Verify straight-line strength reduction for simple pointer subtraction. */ /* { dg-do compile } */ -/* { dg-options "-O3 -fdump-tree-optimized" } */ +/* { dg-options "-O3 -fno-tree-sink -fdump-tree-optimized" } */ int* f (int s, int *c) -- 2.8.4