On 1/24/24 04:26, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2024, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
I don't have a strong opinion on this. I certainly see Andrew's point, but
it's also the case that if some work earlier in the RTL or gimple pipeline
comes along and compromises the test, then we'd see the failure and deal with
it. It's pretty standard procedure.
I'll be happy to add an RTL test case, also for my recent complementary
cset-sext.c addition and maybe other if-conversion pieces recently added.
I think that does not preclude arming pr105314.c with RTL scanning though.
I have made a buch of testcases as we discussed at the meeting last week
and the RTL parser did not blow up, so I have now submitted them. See:
<patches-gcc/https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/643802.html>
and the next two messages (threading broke with this submission for some
reason, probably due to a glitch in my mail client I've seen from time to
time; I guess it's not worth it to get the patch series resubmitted as
they are independent from each other really and can be applied in any
order).
I haven't heard back from Andrew beyond his initial message, so it's not
clear to me whether he maintains his objection in spite the arguments
given. Andrew?
Do we have consensus now to move forward with this change as posted? I'd
like to get these patches ticked off ASAP.
I think it should move forward. I think having the RTL tests deals with
Andrew's concern and the testcase adjustment has value as well.
I ACK's the RTL tests a few minutes ago and we should consider the 1/2
and 2/2 of the original OK now as well.
Thanks,
Jeff
