On 09/16/2016 03:19 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
When possible I don't think we want the tests to be target specific.
Hmm, I'm probably about to argue for Bernd's work... The 71779
testcase
is a great example -- it uses high/lo_sum. Not all targets support
that
-- as long as we don't try to recog
On Fri, 2016-09-16 at 14:26 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/08/2016 06:30 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > This patch uses rtl_dump_test to start building out a test suite
> > for cse.
> >
> > I attempted to create a reproducer for PR 71779; however I'm not
> > yet
> > able to replicate the bogus cse r
On 09/08/2016 06:30 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
This patch uses rtl_dump_test to start building out a test suite
for cse.
I attempted to create a reproducer for PR 71779; however I'm not yet
able to replicate the bogus cse reported there via the test case.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* cse.c: Include s
On 09/10/16 01:11, Jeff Law wrote:
>> First the good news. The unit test does actually work, but not only
>> on aarch even without -mabi=ilp32, but also on i386. All that's
>> missing is a check that we don't get a reg/f here:
> Sweet. This starts to touch on some of those unanswered questions
On 09/09/2016 07:28 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Hi David,
I attempted to create a reproducer for PR 71779; however I'm not yet
able to replicate the bogus cse reported there via the test case.
Thanks, this is just awesome. I immediately had to try your patch.
I'd pointed David at 71779 because
Hi David,
> I attempted to create a reproducer for PR 71779; however I'm not yet
> able to replicate the bogus cse reported there via the test case.
Thanks, this is just awesome. I immediately had to try your patch.
The main reason for PR 71779 was that this
(insn 1047 1046 1048 (set (reg:DI 4
