On 12/27/13 03:16, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 02:11:13PM +0400, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
Testcase is very small. Why not add it?
Frankly, I think that the chances of this test uncovering similar
issues in the future are very small. It needs lots of options to
make it trigger and even with this a specific revision. The chance
of triggering the asserts I added on another code is much higher.
In the past, I have also avoided to add tests that require 5+
options to trigger the issue, adding only those that have some hope
on more ore less reliably reproducing the required issue. The best
solution of course is having an infrastructure to test the specific
scheduler decisions, which we don't have.
You are welcome to add the test if you feel so strongly about us needing it.
I guess it depends, if you e.g. have a small runtime testcase, it might be
useful to add it, while it is unlikely it will trigger the same issue, it
could trigger a different issue in another part of the compiler, especially
if the testcase is a combination of e.g. several more rarely used features.
But for a ICE testcase with many weird options to trigger it I agree it
sometimes doesn't make sense to add the testcase, especially if it already
doesn't trigger on the trunk as in this case.
IIRC, for this particular bug it also heavily depended on the exact
register allocation at a key point. So it could easily go latent on the
trunk.
jeff
