On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 09:51:48AM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 14/09/12 09:38, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 09:27:27AM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
> >> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp81.c: New test.
> >> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp81-2.c: Same.
> >> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp82.c: Same.
> >
> > Why not vrp82.c, vrp83.c and vrp84.c (and rename the recently added
> > vrp80-2.c test to vrp81.c)?
> >
>
> My thinking behind this was the following: vrp80.c and vrp80-2.c are 2
> versions
> of more or less the same code. In one version, we test whether the inclusive
> bounds of the range are folded. In the other version we test whether the
> exclusive bounds of the range are not folded.
IMHO it is enough to give them consecutive numbers, there are many cases
where multiple vrpNN.c tests have been added for more or less the same code,
but I don't care that much, will leave that decision to Richard as the
probable reviewer.
Jakub
