On 01/10/2013 03:13 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
Gary Funck noted that vrp06.c has two tests with the same output. After
further investigation it was clear that expected output strings were too
lenient and were in fact masking a missed optimizatio
On 01/10/2013 03:13 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Hmm, but if the SSA versions are simply i_10 then i_.*0 will still match it
the same? I think you want the more elaborate 'i_\[0-9\]* . 0' here?
Per Uros's suggestion I'm using i[0-9]+ to ensure we one or more digits.
Please also open a bug for
On 01/10/2013 03:31 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
Hello!
This patch tightens the expected output from the vrp dump which has the side
effect of making each test's string unique. Obviously the masked failure is
xfailed.
OK for the trunk?
Hmm, but if the SSA versions are simply i_10 then i_.*0 will
Hello!
>> This patch tightens the expected output from the vrp dump which has the side
>> effect of making each test's string unique. Obviously the masked failure is
>> xfailed.
>>
>> OK for the trunk?
>
> Hmm, but if the SSA versions are simply i_10 then i_.*0 will still match it
> the same? I
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> Gary Funck noted that vrp06.c has two tests with the same output. After
> further investigation it was clear that expected output strings were too
> lenient and were in fact masking a missed optimization.
>
> This patch tightens the expected ou
Gary Funck noted that vrp06.c has two tests with the same output. After
further investigation it was clear that expected output strings were too
lenient and were in fact masking a missed optimization.
This patch tightens the expected output from the vrp dump which has the
side effect of mak
