https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120805
--- Comment #15 from Avinash Jayakar ---
Ok so I will submit a patch with the change that Tamar Christina suggested and
add a few comments for few of the failing test cases as Segher suggested.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120805
--- Comment #12 from Avinash Jayakar ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #10)
> As a meta-comment: almost everything using scan-assembler-times is
> obfuscated.
>
> It should always say in comments *why* it expects it as many times
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120805
--- Comment #11 from Avinash Jayakar ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #9)
> (In reply to Avinash Jayakar from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #7)
> > > (In reply to Avinash Jayakar from comment #6)
> > > No
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120805
--- Comment #8 from Avinash Jayakar ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #7)
> (In reply to Avinash Jayakar from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #5)
> > > (In reply to Avinash Jayakar from comment #4)
> > > > S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120805
--- Comment #6 from Avinash Jayakar ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #5)
> (In reply to Avinash Jayakar from comment #4)
> > So my main doubt here is const_vf, is supposed to be 0 for the epilogue
> > block right, just like log_vf w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120805
Avinash Jayakar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||avinashd at linux dot ibm.com
--- Com
