This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [testsuite] Don't xfail gcc.dg/binop-xor1.c
- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Rainer Orth <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, rsandifo at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com
- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 12:47:33 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: [testsuite] Don't xfail gcc.dg/binop-xor1.c
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <yddtxcf5gwe dot fsf at lokon dot CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE> <alpine dot BSF dot 2 dot 02 dot 1402130521080 dot 19184 at arjuna dot pair dot com> <87ob2bb7zb dot fsf at sandifor-thinkpad dot stglab dot manchester dot uk dot ibm dot com> <87ha83b7uv dot fsf at sandifor-thinkpad dot stglab dot manchester dot uk dot ibm dot com> <52FE543F dot 1030405 at redhat dot com> <20140214174024 dot GI20378 at tucnak dot redhat dot com>
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:37:03AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 02/13/14 03:54, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > >Richard Sandiford <rsandifo@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> > >>Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> writes:
> > >>>On Tue, 4 Feb 2014, Rainer Orth wrote:
> > >>>>AFAICT the gcc.dg/binop-xor1.c test is XPASSing everywhere since about
> > >>>>20131114:
> > >>>
> > >>>Bah, missing analysis. "Everywhere" does not include cris-elf,
> > >>>powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu, m68k-unknown-linux-gnu,
> > >>>s390x-ibm-linux-gnu, powerpc-ibm-aix7.1.0.0.
> > >>
> > >>Based on this list I'm guessing it's another BRANCH_COST==1
> > >
> > >BRANCH_COST==1 || !LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT
> > ISTM that we ought to have a dejagnu test which we can use to ignore
> > or otherwise change the expected output on these targets.
> >
> > We could try and be clever and determine it from compiler output, or
> > somehow arrange for GCC to make that information available to
> > dejagnu. But by far the easiest way is just a list of targets.
>
> Yeah, the BRANCH_COST and/or LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT value could e.g.
> be emitted in some comment in selected tree dump if details are requested (say
> -fdump-tree-gimple-details) and then an effective target can check for that
> easily.
I've been thinking along those lines (though a RTL dump will be
somewhat more appropriate). A target list will be insufficient
when the branch cost etc. depends on compiler options.
brgds, H-P