Sorry..
XFAIl the test.
Pushed.
On 10/27/25 04:30, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 6:15 PM Andrew MacLeod <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/24/25 05:29, Richard Biener wrote:
I'd say commit it and re-open the bug - it has not been "fixed", but
it was made latent anyway.
Richard.
I checked it in. I was just thinking, should I do anything to the
testcase for 111003? mark it XFAIL or something or just leave it as is?
If it now FAILs make it XFAIL.
Richard.
Andrew
From d946535e05af6bd9ca32b86aaf4152571dfaf418 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andrew MacLeod <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 10:02:21 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] XFAIL test for PR 111003.
The change to 118254 uncovered the latent bug in 111003, reopened and
xfailed current test.
PR tree-optimization/111003
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr111003.c: XFAIL.
---
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr111003.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr111003.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr111003.c
index 59d3a966662..10cfe88e33e 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr111003.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr111003.c
@@ -31,4 +31,4 @@ static int *i() {
}
int main() { k(c, c); }
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "foo" "optimized" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "foo" "optimized" { xfail *-*-* } } } */
--
2.45.0
