From patchwork Mon Jul 2 23:28:05 2012 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Oleg Endo X-Patchwork-Id: 168658 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 E48512C00AD for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 09:28:30 +1000 (EST) Comment: DKIM? See http://www.dkim.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; x=1341876511; h=Comment: DomainKey-Signature:Received:Received:Received:Received:Received: Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Date:Content-Type:Mime-Version: Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive: List-Post:List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; bh=IzfRJTxt+DNv0zUVu8eX EKc4Wc4=; b=egTPSrBUCJIOrXsAUplUoXgJVMWmD8LS/KX5byDhBt0tt5wp9zw6 d1tBFX+l/GL9lqaGjzJ2SPiuqAU2l+fpoxE+ze2PeGGbf/ir3ysbzehcttgU5/D3 5YfpHuxVCAQST0XNSS+mrGDagul0jWYY58BfvkgY2PLmCOFrZcZRN5Q= Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gcc.gnu.org; h=Received:Received:X-SWARE-Spam-Status:X-Spam-Check-By:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Date:Content-Type:Mime-Version:X-IsSubscribed:Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; b=sgRNXefmsndPL3luGIMZhFBeaJH40BThpBUx3jp+ss+/f5DrrriGYesMWCKSAx M4HfNYZts3ROL71guiTTkED7AJCjpWgsuumuJ86igodH8gaht38AMaH+gwtcvC12 WaWeKmfGwnQ7W2I7zbmZNLS3My2I7S+O1ZxFM9+KKpV4Q=; Received: (qmail 13343 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2012 23:28:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 13334 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Jul 2012 23:28:26 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mailout07.t-online.de (HELO mailout07.t-online.de) (194.25.134.83) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 23:28:13 +0000 Received: from fwd00.aul.t-online.de (fwd00.aul.t-online.de ) by mailout07.t-online.de with smtp id 1Slq2N-0003Na-N3; Tue, 03 Jul 2012 01:28:11 +0200 Received: from [192.168.0.104] (VTus1BZXrhMigUX8rUhy9y+oj0MydLAzCoIXxqv9-UHL2wN20D5sABitduIFrDrZ7U@[93.218.160.246]) by fwd00.t-online.de with esmtp id 1Slq2J-0pXIIq0; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 01:28:07 +0200 Message-ID: <1341271685.2287.9.camel@yam-132-YW-E178-FTW> Subject: [SH] Remove XFAIL from packed1.C test case From: Oleg Endo To: gcc-patches Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 01:28:05 +0200 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 Hello, The test case g++.dg/other/packed1.C does not fail on SH. Is it OK to remove SH from the xfail list there? Tested with make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp=packed1.C --target_board=sh-sim \{-m2/-ml,-m2/-mb,-m2a/-mb,-m2a-single/-mb,-m4/-ml,-m4/-mb, -m4-single/-ml,-m4-single/-mb,-m4a-single/-ml,-m4a-single/-mb}" to confirm that the test case passes. Cheers, Oleg testsuite/ChangeLog: * g++.dg/other/packed1.C: Remove SH from xfail list. Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/other/packed1.C =================================================================== --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/other/packed1.C (revision 189180) +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/other/packed1.C (working copy) @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -// { dg-do run { xfail sh-*-* lm32-*-* } } +// { dg-do run { xfail lm32-*-* } } // NMS:2003-04-21 this fails on strict aligned architectures again, // the patch was reverted because it broke something more important.