Hi,
For nvptx, I run into a couple of XPASSes due to nvptx not being listed in:
...
{ xfail { ! { long list of targets } } }
...
Add nvptx to the list to get a PASS. Tested on nvptx.
Committed to trunk.
Thanks,
- Tom
[nvptx, testsuite] Disable default xfails
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2020-10-15 Tom de Vries <tdevr...@suse.de>
* gcc.dg/attr-alloc_size-11.c: Don't xfail for nvptx.
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20040204-1.c: Same.
---
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/attr-alloc_size-11.c | 4 ++--
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20040204-1.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/attr-alloc_size-11.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/attr-alloc_size-11.c
index a3d95c4e587..8332b39930c 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/attr-alloc_size-11.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/attr-alloc_size-11.c
@@ -47,8 +47,8 @@ typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
/* The following tests fail because of missing range information. The xfail
exclusions are PR79356. */
-TEST (signed char, SCHAR_MIN + 2, ALLOC_MAX); /* { dg-warning "argument 1
range \\\[13, \[0-9\]+\\\] exceeds maximum object size 12" "missing range info
for signed char" { xfail { ! { aarch64*-*-* arm*-*-* avr-*-* alpha*-*-*
ia64-*-* mips*-*-* or1k*-*-* pdp11*-*-* powerpc*-*-* sparc*-*-* s390*-*-*
visium-*-* msp430-*-* } } } } */
-TEST (short, SHRT_MIN + 2, ALLOC_MAX); /* { dg-warning "argument 1 range
\\\[13, \[0-9\]+\\\] exceeds maximum object size 12" "missing range info for
short" { xfail { ! { aarch64*-*-* arm*-*-* alpha*-*-* avr-*-* ia64-*-*
mips*-*-* or1k*-*-* pdp11*-*-* powerpc*-*-* sparc*-*-* s390x-*-* visium-*-*
msp430-*-* } } } } */
+TEST (signed char, SCHAR_MIN + 2, ALLOC_MAX); /* { dg-warning "argument 1
range \\\[13, \[0-9\]+\\\] exceeds maximum object size 12" "missing range info
for signed char" { xfail { ! { aarch64*-*-* arm*-*-* avr-*-* alpha*-*-*
ia64-*-* mips*-*-* or1k*-*-* pdp11*-*-* powerpc*-*-* sparc*-*-* s390*-*-*
visium-*-* msp430-*-* nvptx*-*-*} } } } */
+TEST (short, SHRT_MIN + 2, ALLOC_MAX); /* { dg-warning "argument 1 range
\\\[13, \[0-9\]+\\\] exceeds maximum object size 12" "missing range info for
short" { xfail { ! { aarch64*-*-* arm*-*-* alpha*-*-* avr-*-* ia64-*-*
mips*-*-* or1k*-*-* pdp11*-*-* powerpc*-*-* sparc*-*-* s390x-*-* visium-*-*
msp430-*-* nvptx*-*-* } } } } */
TEST (int, INT_MIN + 2, ALLOC_MAX); /* { dg-warning "argument 1 range
\\\[13, \[0-9\]+\\\] exceeds maximum object size 12" } */
TEST (int, -3, ALLOC_MAX); /* { dg-warning "argument 1 range
\\\[13, \[0-9\]+\\\] exceeds maximum object size 12" } */
TEST (int, -2, ALLOC_MAX); /* { dg-warning "argument 1 range
\\\[13, \[0-9\]+\\\] exceeds maximum object size 12" } */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20040204-1.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20040204-1.c
index b7d50ecd6d6..b9f8fd21ac9 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20040204-1.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20040204-1.c
@@ -33,4 +33,4 @@ void test55 (int x, int y)
that the && should be emitted (based on BRANCH_COST). Fix this
by teaching dom to look through && and register all components
as true. */
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "link_error" 0 "optimized" { xfail { !
"alpha*-*-* arm*-*-* aarch64*-*-* powerpc*-*-* cris-*-* hppa*-*-* i?86-*-*
mmix-*-* mips*-*-* m68k*-*-* moxie-*-* nds32*-*-* s390*-*-* sh*-*-* sparc*-*-*
visium-*-* x86_64-*-* riscv*-*-* or1k*-*-* msp430-*-* pru*-*-*" } } } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "link_error" 0 "optimized" { xfail { !
"alpha*-*-* arm*-*-* aarch64*-*-* powerpc*-*-* cris-*-* hppa*-*-* i?86-*-*
mmix-*-* mips*-*-* m68k*-*-* moxie-*-* nds32*-*-* s390*-*-* sh*-*-* sparc*-*-*
visium-*-* x86_64-*-* riscv*-*-* or1k*-*-* msp430-*-* pru*-*-* nvptx*-*-*" } }
} } */
