Message ID | CA+=Sn1=6C-8Y4z6YkBY9H4H9erph6ziRjs+_b0icjLOCjoyRJw@mail.gmail.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
On February 8, 2015 9:39:20 PM CET, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote: >Like https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-01/msg02646.html, we >should xfail this testcase for aarch64 too. > >OK? Bootstrapped and tested on aarch64-linux-gnu. OK. Thanks, Richard. >Thanks, >Andrew Pinski > >ChangeLog: >* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c: xfail for AARCH64 also.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c index f767a31..1b7369c 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c @@ -20,5 +20,5 @@ foo () /* See PR63679 and PR64159, if the target forces the initializer to memory then DOM is not able to perform this optimization. */ -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "return 28;" "optimized" { xfail hppa*-*-* powerpc*-*-* sparc*-*-*} } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "return 28;" "optimized" { xfail hppa*-*-* powerpc*-*-* sparc*-*-* aarch64*-*-* } } } */ /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "optimized" } } */