Message ID | CAGWvnymfJgxYhKG95gTKXJp0z57xRzR-y2y5kJKDTaWna-Qpkg@mail.gmail.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com> writes: > As discussed in the PR and referenced by the comment in the testcase > itself, the failure is expected on PowerPC and also occurs on SPARC. > > Thanks, David > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c: XFAIL for powerpc*-*-* and sparc*-*-*. > > Index: ssa-dom-cse-2.c > =================================================================== > --- ssa-dom-cse-2.c (revision 220256) > +++ ssa-dom-cse-2.c (working copy) > @@ -20,5 +20,5 @@ > /* See PR63679, 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*-*-* } } } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "return 28;" "optimized" { xfail > hppa*-*-* powerpc*-*-* sparc*-*-*} } } */ > /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "optimized" } } */ If this go in, please add both a PR reference in the ChangeLog and a comment referencing that PR about the xfail. Thanks. Rainer
On 01/29/15 12:27, David Edelsohn wrote: > As discussed in the PR and referenced by the comment in the testcase > itself, the failure is expected on PowerPC and also occurs on SPARC. > > Thanks, David > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c: XFAIL for powerpc*-*-* and sparc*-*-*. Seems good to me. As Rainer noted, PR marker and comment seems wise. Jeff
Index: ssa-dom-cse-2.c =================================================================== --- ssa-dom-cse-2.c (revision 220256) +++ ssa-dom-cse-2.c (working copy) @@ -20,5 +20,5 @@ /* See PR63679, 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*-*-* } } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "return 28;" "optimized" { xfail