More vector folding

[Marc Glisse]

On Fri, 17 May 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:

> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 09:54:14PM +0800, Chung-Ju Wu wrote:
>> 2013/5/17 Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr>:
>>>
>>> Yes, LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT seems to be it.
>>>
>>> What is the proper thing to do here? If I add the generic xfail back, we'll
>>> get xpass on some platforms, now we have fails on some platforms, and
>>> listing the platforms where we want the transformation to happen is just a
>>> pain. Shall I remove the testcase?
>>>
>>
>> If we cannot redesign the testcase, we should remove it.
>> Because it seems the testcase cannot properly demonstrate
>> its purpose after r198983.
>>
>> Otherwise we better have some comment in the testcase
>> to inform target maintainers listing their targets in the xfail field.
>
> You can just limit the testcase to a few selected targets, if it includes
> a few widely used architectures, it will be enough for the testing and will
> be better than removing the testcase altogether.

Like this? (according to the PR, ia64, sh4 and spu would work too)

I tested with:
make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS=dg.exp=binop-xor3.c

and it still passes on x86_64 and appears as "unsupported" on powerpc.

2013-05-17  Marc Glisse  <marc.glisse@inria.fr>

 	PR regression/57313
 	* gcc.dg/binop-xor3.c: Restrict to platforms known to work (x86).


-- 
Marc Glisse
-------------- next part --------------
Index: gcc.dg/binop-xor3.c
===================================================================
--- gcc.dg/binop-xor3.c	(revision 199006)
+++ gcc.dg/binop-xor3.c	(working copy)
@@ -1,11 +1,11 @@
-/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-do compile { target i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* } } */
 /* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-optimized" } */
 
 int
 foo (int a, int b)
 {
   return ((a && !b) || (!a && b));
 }
 
 /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "\\\^" 1 "optimized" } } */
 /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "optimized" } } */