Re: [PATCH] Change dump expectation in PR71857
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 08/01/2016 01:58 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> After changing the expected number of loop iterations, IVOPTS decides to
>>> pick up an another IV.
>>> Bin agreed that the test-case still makes sense with changed expectation.
>>>
>>> Ready to be installed?
>>
>> Hmm, but do all targets replace the exit test? I think you want to
>> allow either no "Replacing"
>> or just "Replacing exit test" - not sure how to encode that in a regex.
>>
>> Richard.
>
> Well, the test-case is run just on { i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* } && lp64
> with -m64, thus I guess the exit condition should be always replaced.
Ah, ok then.
Richard.
> Martin
>
>
>>
>>> Martin
>
Re: [PATCH] Change dump expectation in PR71857
On 08/01/2016 01:58 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> After changing the expected number of loop iterations, IVOPTS decides to
>> pick up an another IV.
>> Bin agreed that the test-case still makes sense with changed expectation.
>>
>> Ready to be installed?
>
> Hmm, but do all targets replace the exit test? I think you want to
> allow either no "Replacing"
> or just "Replacing exit test" - not sure how to encode that in a regex.
>
> Richard.
Well, the test-case is run just on { i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* } && lp64
with -m64, thus I guess the exit condition should be always replaced.
Martin
>
>> Martin
Re: [PATCH] Change dump expectation in PR71857
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Martin Liška wrote: > Hello. > > After changing the expected number of loop iterations, IVOPTS decides to pick > up an another IV. > Bin agreed that the test-case still makes sense with changed expectation. > > Ready to be installed? Hmm, but do all targets replace the exit test? I think you want to allow either no "Replacing" or just "Replacing exit test" - not sure how to encode that in a regex. Richard. > Martin
