This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug testsuite/52563] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-[3,4].c scan-tree-dump-times optimized "&a" 1
- From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 09:51:00 +0000
- Subject: [Bug testsuite/52563] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-[3,4].c scan-tree-dump-times optimized "&a" 1
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-52563-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52563
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2012-03-20 09:51:00 UTC ---
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012, liujiangning at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52563
>
> --- Comment #6 from Jiangning Liu <liujiangning at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-03-20 02:32:12 UTC ---
> > We cannot fix it without relaxing the POINTER_PLUS_EXPR constraints.
> > I was working on that, but as usual the TYPE_IS_SIZETYPE removal
> > has priority.
>
> Do you mean you are also working on removing TYPE_IS_SIZETYPE?
Yes.
> >
> > Please consider fixing/XFAILing the testcases as they still FAIL and you
> > are responsible for this. You can open a new enhancement PR covering
> > this.
> >
>
> I think 64-bit mode should also have this optimization enabled. XFAIL implies
> the missing of this optimization is a correct behavior. But I think this is not
> what I expected. So I don't think we should add XFAIL for this case. Instead I
> want to add a new test case scev-5.c to cover 64-bit testing.
XFAIL says it's a known failure.
Richard.