| Message ID | 1423584381-14879-1-git-send-email-james.greenhalgh@arm.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Feb 10, 2015, at 8:06 AM, James Greenhalgh <james.greenhalgh@arm.com> wrote: > As is already done for mips and hppa, we should XFAIL this test on > AArch64 as we don't currently use the store_by_pieces infrastructure. For this patch, either this is obvious or a target person should weigh in. I’d only step in if the target maintainers went MIA. My only comment would be, add a /* move_by_pieces */ or something above the xfail that would indicate to the next person doing a port that gets a fail, if they are in the same boat as all the others.
On 10 February 2015 at 16:06, James Greenhalgh <james.greenhalgh@arm.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > As is already done for mips and hppa, we should XFAIL this test on > AArch64 as we don't currently use the store_by_pieces infrastructure. > > We may in future want to tweak this, but for GCC 5.0 the safe thing > to do is just to XFAIL the test. > > Tested with aarch64-none-elf. > > OK? Ok, with Mike's comment addressed... /Marcus > Thanks, > James > > --- > 2015-02-10 James Greenhalgh <james.greenhalgh@arm.com> > > * gfortran.dg/pr45636.f90: XFAIL for aarch64* targets.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr45636.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr45636.f90 index c80dda4..e3d8ca6 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr45636.f90 +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr45636.f90 @@ -10,5 +10,5 @@ program main b = y call sub(a, b) end program main -! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "memset" 0 "forwprop2" { xfail { { hppa*-*-* && { ! lp64 } } || { mips*-*-* && { ! nomips16 } } } } } } +! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "memset" 0 "forwprop2" { xfail { { hppa*-*-* && { ! lp64 } } || { { mips*-*-* && { ! nomips16 } } || { aarch64*-*-* } } } } } } ! { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "forwprop2" } }