On Fri, 12 Jan 2024, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > Verify that if-conversion succeeded through noce_try_store_flag_mask, as > > per PR rtl-optimization/105314, tightening the test case and making it > > explicit. > > > > gcc/testsuite/ > > * gcc.target/riscv/pr105314.c: Scan the RTL "ce1" pass too. > > I have an objection for this, if we are checking the RTL pass and not > overall code generation, then maybe we change the testcase so that it > is a RTL testcase instead.
It's not clear to me what you mean by an "RTL testcase", i.e. how you'd see the testcase changed (or an additional one produced instead) and why, please elaborate. Right now we verify that branches are absent from output, but not how that happens. > Especially when there might be improvements going into GCC 15 > specifically targeting ifcvt on the gimple level (I am planning on > doing some). How are the improvements going to affect the testcase? If they make it no longer relevant (in which case a replacement testcase for the new arrangement will be needed) or require updates, then I think it's an expected situation: one of the purposes of the testsuite is to make sure we're in control and understand what the consequences of changes made are. It's not that the testsuite is cast in stone and not expected to change. I.e. if we expect noce_try_store_flag_mask no longer to trigger, then we'll see that in the test results (good!) and we can update the relevant test case(s). e.g. by reversing the pass criteria so that we're still in control. Maciej
