This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[testsuite] XFAIL gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c on Tru64 UNIX (PR tree-optimization/47407)
- From: Rainer Orth <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE>
- To: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 11:31:53 +0200
- Subject: [testsuite] XFAIL gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c on Tru64 UNIX (PR tree-optimization/47407)
As Martin analyzed in the PR, those failures are expected, so I'm
XFAILing them.
Tested with the appropriate runtest invocations on alpha-dec-osf5.1b and
i386-pc-solaris2.11, installed on mainline.
Rainer
2011-07-29 Rainer Orth <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
PR tree-optimization/47407
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c: XFAIL scan-tree-dump-times on
alpha*-dec-osf*.
Sort target list.
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c (revision 176918)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c (working copy)
@@ -35,6 +35,6 @@
/* Whether the structs are totally scalarized or not depends on the
MOVE_RATIO macro defintion in the back end. The scalarization will
not take place when using small values for MOVE_RATIO. */
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "struct _fat_ptr _ans" 0 "optimized" { target { ! "powerpc*-*-* arm-*-* sh*-*-* s390*-*-*" } } } } */
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "struct _fat_ptr _T2" 0 "optimized" { target { ! "powerpc*-*-* arm-*-* sh*-*-* s390*-*-*" } } } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "struct _fat_ptr _ans" 0 "optimized" { target { ! "alpha*-dec-osf* arm-*-* powerpc*-*-* s390*-*-* sh*-*-*" } } } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "struct _fat_ptr _T2" 0 "optimized" { target { ! "alpha*-dec-osf* arm-*-* powerpc*-*-* s390*-*-* sh*-*-*" } } } } */
/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "optimized" } } */
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University