On Jun 27, 2012, at 3:36 PM, Janis Johnson wrote:
> These scans from gcc.dg/vect/vect-50.c, and others similar to them in
> other vect tests, hurt my brain:
>
> /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 2
> "vect" { xfail { vect_no_align } } } } */
> /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 2
> "vect" { target vect_hw_misalign } } } */
>
> Both of these PASS for i686-pc-linux-gnu, causing duplicate lines in the
> gcc test summary. I'm pretty sure the following accomplishes the same
> goal:
>
> /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 2
> "vect" { xfail { vect_no_align && { ! vect_hw_misalign } } } } } */
I don't think so? The first sets the xfail status for the testcase. If you
change the condition, you can't the xfail state for some targets, which would
be wrong (without a vec person chiming in).
I'd like to think you can compose the two with some spelling... I just don't
think this one is it.?
I grepped around and found:
/* { dg-message "does break strict-aliasing" "" { target { *-*-* && lp64 }
xfail *-*-* } 8 } */
which might have the right way to spell it, though, I always test to ensure the
construct does what I want.
> That is, run the check everywhere
We don't want to run the test on other than vect_hw_misalign targets, right?
