On Sun, Dec 8, 2024 at 7:58 PM Hans-Peter Nilsson <h...@axis.com> wrote:
>
> v2: oops, typo: component is tree-optimization, not tree-ssa.
> Resent for the benefit of autotesters that don't yet
> understand natural language.
>
> Forcing a fail and marking as xfail is IMHO better than
> passing --param=logical-op-non-short-circuit=0 or #pragma
> GCC unroll, making the test pass. To wit, this makes it
> observable when it's fixed.
>
> Ok to commit?
As Andrew said the fix the testcase was written for was targeting
--param logical-op-non-short-circuit=1 it makes more sense to force
that so we continue to check it works.
We should simply track the failure to optimize with =0 in a new PR.
So, OK with avoiding the XFAIL and defaulting to =1.
Richard.
> -- >8 --
> This is expected fallout from r15-5646-gd1cf0d7a0f27fd as
> described by that commit.
>
> PR tree-optimization/117954
> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr111456-1.c: Xfail and pass
> --param=logical-op-non-short-circuit=0.
> ---
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr111456-1.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr111456-1.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr111456-1.c
> index ffff664a1afa..24984cd6c6b7 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr111456-1.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr111456-1.c
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> /* { dg-do compile } */
> -/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-optimized" } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-optimized --param
> logical-op-non-short-circuit=0" } */
> /* PR tree-optimization/111456 */
>
> void foo(void);
> @@ -38,6 +38,6 @@ static signed char k(signed char m, short n) {
> int main() { k(0 <= 0 > *j, i); }
>
>
> -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "foo " "optimized" } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "foo " "optimized" { xfail *-*-* } } } */
> /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "return 0;" "optimized" } } */
>
> --
> 2.30.2
>
