> 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.
This looks ok, thanks!
Honza
>
> 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"} } */
