> On Jul 15, 2016, at 2:24 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 07/14/2016 01:21 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 07/13/2016 07:21 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> Isn't that a code qualit
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 07/14/2016 01:21 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> On 07/13/2016 07:21 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
Isn't that a code quality regression? So instead shouldn't we be keeping
the same ex
On 07/14/2016 01:21 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 07/13/2016 07:21 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> Isn't that a code quality regression? So instead shouldn't we be keeping
>>> the same expectation, but xfailing the test?
>>>
>>> jeff
>>
>> Hello.
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 07/13/2016 07:21 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> Isn't that a code quality regression? So instead shouldn't we be keeping
>> the same expectation, but xfailing the test?
>>
>> jeff
>
> Hello.
>
> Disabling a pass before slsr makes the test to catc
Thanks,
Martin
>From 59e3c47ca4fad03a8152776ad5100eed7b610883 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: marxin
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 13:02:05 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Amend dump expectation in slsr-8.c (PR
tree-optimization/71490)
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-07-13 Martin Liska
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa
On 07/13/2016 08:47 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
Hello.
As mentioned in [1], one slsr transformation is gone, thus we need to change
expected number
of multiplications.
Ready to be installed?
Thanks,
Martin
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71490#c5
Isn't that a code quality regress
rom: marxin
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:39:28 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Amend dump expectation in slsr-8.c (PR
tree-optimization/71490)
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-07-13 Martin Liska
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/slsr-8.c: Amend dump expectation.
---
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/slsr-8.c | 4 ++--
1 f
