On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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.
I agree with Jakub - the patch is ok with adjusting the testcase names. Thanks, Richard. > Jakub