This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix PR84534: several powerpc test cases fail starting with r257915
- From: Peter Bergner <bergner at vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Bill Seurer <seurer at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 16:51:27 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix PR84534: several powerpc test cases fail starting with r257915
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <593f8da7-fb69-0400-f691-dbabc32cb639@vnet.ibm.com> <20180228223644.GC21977@gate.crashing.org>
On 2/28/18 4:36 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> * gcc.target/powerpc/vec-setup-be-long.c: xfail.
>
> "Add xfail for powerpc64le" or similar?
Doh! I was going to say "why?" since we're xfailing it everywhere, but I
see I messed up that hunk, which should be "xfail {*-*-*}". The test case
currently only runs on powerpc64le*-*-linux* and we want to xfail it on
powerpc64le*-*-linux*, so that leaves not really running it anywhere.
Offline, I mentioned using:
-/* { dg-do run { target { powerpc64le*-*-linux* } } } */
+/* { dg-do run { target { powerpc64le*-*-linux* } xfail { powerpc64le*-*-linux* } } } */
...and you said we could just use "xfail {*-*-*}". But thinking about
it some more, doesn't "xfail {*-*-*}" add XFAILs on BE, AIX, etc. that
never used to run the test because the target didn't allow it?
So should we go with my original idea above? Or maybe we don't care
that we XFAIL on some targets since we're just going to remove the
test next release with the removal -maltivec=be?
>> * gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-vector-6-le.c: Do not count xxlor's.
>> * gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-vector-6-le.p9.c: Likewise.
>
> Please add a comment to the testcase why there is no count here.
Will do.
Peter