On 12 January 2018 at 06:15, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 01/11/2018 02:48 PM, Rainer Orth wrote: >> >> Hi Martin, >> >>>> I am not sure why constant string is not emitted for arm-linux-gnueabihf >>>> ? >>>> As far as this issue is concerned, should I simply XFAIL it on arm for >>>> now ? >>> >>> >>> This is not unique to the arm back end but affects other targets >>> as well, including powerpc64. There's a bug open (PR 83462) for >>> one of the tests I recently added with the same root cause: >>> a case not being handled by the strlen pass. I'm tracking this >>> missed optimization in PR 83543. I would expect handling it >>> to be fairly easy but it seems that every I think that it turns >>> out to be anything but. Either way, either fixing 83543 or >>> marking this failure (and those in PR 83462) XFAIL until it >>> the optimization is added should work. >> >> >> I'm seeing the same failure on sparc*-sun-solaris*, and gcc-testresults >> shows it on mips64el-unknown-linux-gnu and powerpc-ibm-aix7.2.0.0, too. >> XFAILing may become unwieldly if more targets are affected. > > > Thanks for pointing it out. I see it there as well with > Prathamesh's test case, though not with the test case in > bug 83543. It is the same root cause in both. I agree > that enhancing the strlen pass to handle this case would > be preferable to just xfailing the test. I'm just not > sure it's possible before stage 3 closes. If not, I'll > work on it in GCC 9. Although the details are target- > specific, the limitation affects all targets and so > having a solution will benefit all all of them. Indeed, however for now I am not sure what would be the best approach ? If the test-case starts failing for many targets, not sure if XFAIL would be the right choice. Should I just restrict it to x86_64 target for now ?
Thanks, Prathamesh > > Martin >
