On Thu, 2 Jul 2026, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:

> 
> 
> > On 2 Jul 2026, at 09:00, Richard Biener <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 1 Jul 2026, Jeffrey Law wrote:
> > 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On 7/1/2026 9:43 AM, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
> >>>> What I would suggest would be to look at the code we generate for the
> >>>> split-paths tests before/after removal and make sure we're not missing
> >>>> something.  The tests, more likely than not, test that split-paths
> >>>> triggered rather than looking at the final assembly codes.
> >>> So out of all split-path tests only one shows a difference with
> >>> -fsplit-paths vs -fno-split-paths: split-paths-6.c where -fno-split-paths
> >>> gives +3 aarch64 instructions, but this is a downstream artifact.
> >>> In the source:
> >>> void givehelp (int interactive)
> >>> {
> >>>   if (interactive)
> >>>     while ((--((_impure_ptr->_stdin))->_r < 0
> >>>                ? __srget_r (_impure_ptr, _impure_ptr->_stdin)
> >>>                 : (int) (*((_impure_ptr->_stdin))->_p++)) != ' ‘);
> >>> }
> >>> 
> >>> -fsplit-paths triggers once but the duplication is later remerged but the
> >>> edge probabilities end up different and then loop rotation ends up making
> >>> different layout decisions.
> >>> So I don’t think it’s a very deliberate effect.
> >> Yea, that's sounds more like a random downstream effect than something
> >> intentional.  I don't really recall split-path-6, though a reasonable
> >> assumption would be that I was playing around with the original patch and
> >> included some tests I found when experimenting with the patch's behavior.
> > 
> > Can we preserve testcases as compile-only btw?  Some might have been
> > introduced for ICEs, some for overall expected optimization (with
> > no path splitting).
> > 
> 
> You mean put them in the torture suite without the scans for expected 
> dump/assembly?

Yes, or just remove the scans for expected dump/assembly (if those are
related to path splitting).

> Thanks,
> Kyrill
> 
> > Richard.
> > 
> >> 
> >> Jeff
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Richard Biener <[email protected]>
> > SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH,
> > Frankenstrasse 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany;
> > GF: Jochen Jaser, Andrew McDonald; (HRB 36809, AG Nuernberg)
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Richard Biener <[email protected]>
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH,
Frankenstrasse 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany;
GF: Jochen Jaser, Andrew McDonald; (HRB 36809, AG Nuernberg)

Reply via email to