http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
--- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-05 13:43:04 UTC --- Er, sorry, don't know what key I accidentally pressed but it apparently sent incomplete messages :-( (In reply to comment #10) > Now for the testcases... ;) Yes, that was also my reaction when I looked at the patch... > Seriously, I have no idea what's the "policy" about > this kind of optimization, how many testcases are normally added, in principle > if one wanted to minimally exercise every code path would be dozens, I guess. You can test several almost at once, but yes, that's still quite a few. Richard's old patch has some tests, and more importantly some nice framework to write more. > Personally I would be more interested in knowing how many times the new code > triggers in eg, a bootstrap. Some of the code (the quad_* stuff, the double_int overflow checks) is only for __int128, so not tested a lot. On the other hand, any +/-/* operation on unsigned types (and many on signed types, because some other pass replaces them with unsigned) exercises this code. In a first version, because of a typo, I ended up with a bootstrap failure caused by a miscompiled gengtype that would create files named "gt-c-family-.h" without the "c-common" part inserted...
