This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

[Bug testsuite/52563] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-[3,4].c scan-tree-dump-times optimized "&a" 1


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.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]