On Thu, 7 Dec 2023, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 11:12:39AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > > 2023-12-07 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> > > > > > > PR middle-end/112411 > > > * params.opt (-param=min-nondebug-insn-uid=): Add > > > IntegerRange(0, 1073741824). > > > * lra.cc (check_and_expand_insn_recog_data): Use 3U rather than 3 > > > in * 3 / 2 computation and if the result is smaller or equal to > > > index, use index + 1. > > > > > > * gcc.dg/params/blocksort-part.c: Add dg-skip-if for > > > --param min-nondebug-insn-uid=1073741824. > > > > what's this change for? Do we test the actual param limit? Can you > > skip for the param without specifying the actual upper bound? > > params.exp iterates over all params which have a range selected and tries > to compile the testcase(s) with both the minimum and if any maximum of the > range. > I think it is useful to test normally with --param min-nondebug-insn-uid=0 > the minimum, that means it is off, it is just the maximum which either > doesn't work or requires those hundreds of gigabytes of memory (guess I > should look at what needs that much). > I don't know how else to skip just the maximum test for the param except > to specify the exact value; if params.opt changes that value, people will > notice FAILs of the test and the test can be adjusted too (unless the > maximum is lowered into something so small that it works well even on low > memory 32-bit hosts).
Ah, OK then. Richard.
