[PATCH] re PR tree-optimization/93210 (Sub-optimal code optimization on struct/combound constexpr (gcc vs. clang))

[Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via Gcc-patches]

Regarding test gcc.dg/pr93210.c, on different targets GIMPLE code may
slightly differ which is why the scan-tree-dump-times directive may
fail.  For example, for a RETURN_EXPR on x86_64 we have

  return 0x11100f0e0d0c0a090807060504030201;

whereas on IBM Z the first operand is a RESULT_DECL like

  <retval> = 0x102030405060708090a0c0d0e0f1011;
  return <retval>;

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

        * gcc.dg/pr93210.c: Adapt regex in order to also support a
        RESULT_DECL as an operand for a RETURN_EXPR.

Ok for mainline?

---
 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr93210.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr93210.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr93210.c
index ec4194b6b49..134d32bc505 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr93210.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr93210.c
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 /* PR tree-optimization/93210 */
 /* { dg-do run } */
 /* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-optimized" } */
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "return \[0-9]\[0-9a-fA-FxX]*;" 31 
"optimized" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "(?:return|<retval> =) 
\[0-9]\[0-9a-fA-FxX]*;" 31 "optimized" } } */
 
 #ifdef __SIZEOF_INT128__
 typedef unsigned __int128 L;
-- 
2.23.0