From patchwork Thu Jun 16 20:38:00 2011 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Steve Ellcey X-Patchwork-Id: 100719 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 59E3EB6F80 for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 06:38:25 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 24090 invoked by alias); 16 Jun 2011 20:38:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 24027 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jun 2011 20:38:18 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from g6t0184.atlanta.hp.com (HELO g6t0184.atlanta.hp.com) (15.193.32.61) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 20:38:03 +0000 Received: from g5t0029.atlanta.hp.com (g5t0029.atlanta.hp.com [16.228.8.141]) by g6t0184.atlanta.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C965ACA76; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 20:38:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [16.89.92.85] (hpsje.cup.hp.com [16.89.92.85]) by g5t0029.atlanta.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26CF92029C; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 20:38:00 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [patch, testsuite] Fix g++.dg/opt/devirt2.C scanning, PR 48727 From: Steve Ellcey Reply-To: sje@cup.hp.com To: Hans-Peter Nilsson Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: References: <201106101628.p5AGSXG20686@lucas.cup.hp.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:38:00 -0700 Message-ID: <1308256680.10986.95.camel@hpsje.cup.hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 12:51 -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Steve Ellcey wrote: > > > I will check in this testsuite fix as obvious if there are no objections. > > But... :) > JFTR, if you want this to be really right, you should not xfail > this part of the test but rather skip it, as the test is at > fault, not the targets/gcc. If think it'd be: > > // { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "xyzzy" 2 { target { ! { hppa*-*-* ia64*-*-* } } } } } > > > > +// { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "br\[^\n\]*xyzzy" 2 { target ia64*-*-* } } } > > +// { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "xyzzy\[^\n\]*,%r" 2 { target hppa*-*-* } } } > > > > struct S { S(); virtual void xyzzy(); }; > > struct R { int a; S s; R(); }; > > > > brgds, H-P You are right, and I am going to check in this change as obvious. I have tested it to make sure it works. Steve Ellcey sje@cup.hp.com 2011-06-16 Steve Ellcey PR testsuite/48727 * g++.dg/opt/devirt2.C: Change xfail rule to target. Index: g++.dg/opt/devirt2.C =================================================================== --- g++.dg/opt/devirt2.C (revision 175089) +++ g++.dg/opt/devirt2.C (working copy) @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ // { dg-options "-O2" } // The IA64 and HPPA compilers generate external declarations in addition // to the call so those scans need to be more specific. -// { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "xyzzy" 2 { xfail hppa*-*-* ia64*-*-hpux* } } } +// { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "xyzzy" 2 { target { ! { hppa*-*-* ia64*-*-hpux* } } } } } // { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "br\[^\n\]*xyzzy" 2 { target ia64*-*-hpux* } } } // { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "xyzzy\[^\n\]*,%r" 2 { target hppa*-*-* } } }