On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 04:51:27PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 2/28/18 4:36 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >> * gcc.target/powerpc/vec-setup-be-long.c: xfail.
> >
> > "Add xfail for powerpc64le" or similar?
>
> Doh! I was going to say "why?" since we're xfailing it everywhere, but I
Because you can use a few more words in changelog entries ;-)
"Add xfail." is fine, too. Just "xfail." is unclear.
> see I messed up that hunk, which should be "xfail {*-*-*}". The test case
> currently only runs on powerpc64le*-*-linux* and we want to xfail it on
> powerpc64le*-*-linux*, so that leaves not really running it anywhere.
> Offline, I mentioned using:
>
> -/* { dg-do run { target { powerpc64le*-*-linux* } } } */
> +/* { dg-do run { target { powerpc64le*-*-linux* } xfail {
> powerpc64le*-*-linux* } } } */
>
> ...and you said we could just use "xfail {*-*-*}". But thinking about
> it some more, doesn't "xfail {*-*-*}" add XFAILs on BE, AIX, etc. that
> never used to run the test because the target didn't allow it?
Yeah; keeping it as a separate dg-xfail-if statement works fine though
(is the above dg-do valid syntax even? I have no idea).
> So should we go with my original idea above? Or maybe we don't care
> that we XFAIL on some targets since we're just going to remove the
> test next release with the removal -maltivec=be?
It would be nice to have clean test results, which is all this patch is
about anyway, right?
Segher
