On 01/03/2013 11:54 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
I'd say safer would be to scan the gimple dump instead...
That makes sense.
commit 8a13c5cee23447467ed58bb1f213cad9050e3f87 Author: jason <jason@138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4> Date: Thu Jan 3 18:34:48 2013 +0000 PR c++/53650 * g++.dg/init/array34.C: Check gimple dump, not assembler. diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/array34.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/array34.C index c5f608b..1c2e022 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/array34.C +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/array34.C @@ -1,7 +1,9 @@ // PR c++/53650 // We should loop over array inits if they don't involve temporaries // that need extending. -// { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "_ZN5ClassC1Ev" 1 } } +// { dg-options "-fdump-tree-gimple" } +// { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Class::Class" 1 "gimple" } } +// { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "gimple" } } struct Class { Class();