Hi!
Usually I bootstrap/regtest without graphite, so haven't seen these 3 test
FAILs with my recent patch. Fixed thusly, tested on x86_64-linux, committed
to trunk as obvious.
2013-03-14 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
PR tree-optimization/53265
* gcc.dg/graphite/scop-3.c (toto): Increase array size to avoid
undefined behavior.
* gcc.dg/graphite/id-6.c (test): Likewise.
* gcc.dg/graphite/pr35356-2.c: Adjust regexp patterns to only look for
MIN_EXPR and MAX_EXPR in GIMPLE stmts.
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/graphite/scop-3.c.jj 2009-08-03 09:42:19.000000000
+0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/graphite/scop-3.c 2013-03-14 11:37:25.719648369
+0100
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
int toto()
{
int i, j, k;
- int a[100][100];
+ int a[100][200];
int b[100];
for (i = 1; i < 100; i++)
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/graphite/id-6.c.jj 2009-08-03 09:42:19.000000000
+0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/graphite/id-6.c 2013-03-14 11:37:36.628586994
+0100
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
void foo (int);
int test ()
{
- int a[N];
+ int a[N + 8];
unsigned i;
for (i = 0; i < N; i++)
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/graphite/pr35356-2.c.jj 2011-02-15
15:31:56.000000000 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/graphite/pr35356-2.c 2013-03-14 11:47:54.655777100
+0100
@@ -39,6 +39,6 @@ foo (int bar, int n, int k)
*/
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "MIN_EXPR" 4 "graphite" } } */
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "MAX_EXPR" 4 "graphite" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "MIN_EXPR\[^\\n\\r]*;" 4 "graphite" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "MAX_EXPR\[^\\n\\r]*;" 4 "graphite" } } */
/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "graphite" } } */
Jakub
