On Fri, 17 May 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 09:54:14PM +0800, Chung-Ju Wu wrote:
2013/5/17 Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr>:
Yes, LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT seems to be it.
What is the proper thing to do here? If I add the generic xfail back, we'll
get xpass on some platforms, now we have fails on some platforms, and
listing the platforms where we want the transformation to happen is just a
pain. Shall I remove the testcase?
If we cannot redesign the testcase, we should remove it.
Because it seems the testcase cannot properly demonstrate
its purpose after r198983.
Otherwise we better have some comment in the testcase
to inform target maintainers listing their targets in the xfail field.
You can just limit the testcase to a few selected targets, if it includes
a few widely used architectures, it will be enough for the testing and will
be better than removing the testcase altogether.
Like this? (according to the PR, ia64, sh4 and spu would work too)
I tested with:
make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS=dg.exp=binop-xor3.c
and it still passes on x86_64 and appears as "unsupported" on powerpc.
2013-05-17 Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr>
PR regression/57313
* gcc.dg/binop-xor3.c: Restrict to platforms known to work (x86).
--
Marc GlisseIndex: gcc.dg/binop-xor3.c
===================================================================
--- gcc.dg/binop-xor3.c (revision 199006)
+++ gcc.dg/binop-xor3.c (working copy)
@@ -1,11 +1,11 @@
-/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-do compile { target i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* } } */
/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-optimized" } */
int
foo (int a, int b)
{
return ((a && !b) || (!a && b));
}
/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "\\\^" 1 "optimized" } } */
/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "optimized" } } */
