I noticed the comments in the test don't correspond to what it's
designed to exercise: namely that the call to hot_function() is
inlined and the call to cold_function() is not, rather than
the other way around.
Attached is a patch that adjusts the comments. Honza, please let
me know if this looks correct to you.
Thaks
Martin
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.dg/tree-prof/inliner-1.c: Correct comments.
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/inliner-1.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/inliner-1.c (revision 268755)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/inliner-1.c (working copy)
@@ -28,15 +28,15 @@ main ()
for (i = 0; i < 1000000; i++)
{
if (a)
- cold_function ();
+ cold_function (); /* Should not be inlined. */
else
- hot_function ();
+ hot_function (); /* Should be inlined. */
}
return 0;
}
-/* cold function should be inlined, while hot function should not.
- Look for "cold_function () [tail call];" call statement not for the
- declaration or other appearances of the string in dump. */
+/* The call to hot_function should be inlined, while cold_function should
+ not be. Look for the "cold_function ();" call statement and not for
+ its declaration or other occurrences of the string in the dump. */
/* { dg-final-use { scan-tree-dump "cold_function ..;" "optimized"} } */
/* { dg-final-use { scan-tree-dump-not "hot_function ..;" "optimized"} } */
