This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: c-torture/execute/990208-1.c XPASSes - remove XFAIL?
- From: "Zack Weinberg" <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Jim Wilson <wilson at specifixinc dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:44:43 -0800
- Subject: Re: c-torture/execute/990208-1.c XPASSes - remove XFAIL?
- References: <87wu6muqko.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com><4032880A.80806@specifixinc.com>
Jim Wilson <wilson@specifixinc.com> writes:
> Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> Can I get a second opinion on whether it is now safe to remove the
>> XFAIL?
>
> Looking at gcc-testresults mailing list, I see that it is XPASS for
> ia64-linux and arm-elf also.
>
> I think it is reasonable to drop the XFAIL stuff for all targets.
Thanks. Done thus (3.4 branch and HEAD).
zw
* gcc.c-torture/execute/990208-1.x: Delete.
===================================================================
Index: testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/990208-1.x
--- testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/990208-1.x 20 Sep 2002 15:14:19 -0000 1.3
+++ testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/990208-1.x 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
@@ -1,14 +0,0 @@
-# Doesn't work at -O3 because of ifcvt.c optimizations which
-# cause the 2 inlined labels to be at the same location.
-
-set torture_eval_before_execute {
-
- set compiler_conditional_xfail_data {
- "ifcvt transforms 2 inlined labels to the same address" \
- { "ia64-*-*" "arm*-*-*" "strongarm*-*-*" "xscale*-*-*" } \
- { "-O3" } \
- { "" }
- }
-}
-
-return 0