On 02/28/2013 02:06 AM, Julian Brown wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:04:04 -0800
> Janis Johnson <janis_john...@mentor.com> wrote:
>
>> On 02/27/2013 09:29 AM, Julian Brown wrote:
>>> Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/slp-cond-3.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/slp-cond-3.c (revision 196170)
>>> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/slp-cond-3.c (working copy)
>>> @@ -79,6 +79,6 @@ int main ()
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorizing stmts using SLP"
>>> 1 "vect" } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorizing
>>> stmts using SLP" 1 "vect" { xfail { ! vect_unpack } } } } */ /*
>>> { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "vect" } } */
>>
>> If this and other modified checks only fail for ARM big-endian then
>> they should check for that so they don't XPASS for other targets.
>> It's also possible now to do things like { target vect_blah xfail
>> arm_big_endian }, which might be useful for some tests.
>
> I don't think I understand -- my expectation was e.g. that that test
> would fail for any target which doesn't support vect_unpack. Surely
> you'd only get an XPASS if the test passed when vect_unpack was not
> true?
Right. Please ignore my mail, I was confused.
> I'm not sure why checking for a particular architecture-specific
> predicate would be preferable to checking that a general feature is
> supported. As time progresses, it might well be that e.g. vect_unpack
> becomes supported for big-endian ARM, at which point we shouldn't need
> to edit all the individual tests again...
Right. Once again, I was confused, ignore me.
Janis
