[PATCH] testsuite: Only xfail gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr33804.c etc. on 32-bit SPARC [PR102954]

[Richard Biener]

On Tue, Jan 6, 2026 at 9:38 AM Rainer Orth <ro@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
>
> Two tests currently XPASS on 64-bit Solaris/SPARC:
>
> XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/pr33804.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1
> XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/pr33804.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorizing stmts using SLP" 1
>
> XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/slp-multitypes-3.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1
> XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/slp-multitypes-3.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorizing stmts using SLP" 2
>
> Both tests are currently xfail'ed on sparc*-*-*.  The following patch
> restricts that to 32-bit SPARC instead.
>
> Tested on sparc-sun-solaris2.11 and i386-pc-solaris2.11.
>
> Ok for trunk?

OK.

> However, I wonder if there shouldn't be some effective-target keyword for
> this difference instead of the target-specific xfail (probably not worth
> it) or if restricing the xfail like this is just a hack.

What's the actual difference here?  I expect we use versioning for alignment,
so the effective target requirement on pr33804 looks bogus to me.  Is it
that we lack VnQImode addition support?  (with n a multiple of 4)

What's the difference in behavior of 32bit vs 64bit sparc?

Richard.

> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
>
>
> 2026-01-05  Rainer Orth  <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
>
>         gcc/testsuite:
>         PR tree-optimization/102954
>         * gcc.dg/vect/pr33804.c (scan-tree-dump-times): Only
>         xfail on 32-bit SPARC.
>         * gcc.dg/vect/slp-multitypes-3.c: Likewise.
>