From: Jakub Jelinek Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 11:09:04 +0000 (+0100) Subject: testsuite: XFAIL ssa-sink-18.c also on powerpc64 [PR111462] X-Git-Tag: basepoints/gcc-15~931 X-Git-Url: http://git.ipfire.org/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=92f07eb406612fa341dc33d9d6e4f3781dc09452;p=thirdparty%2Fgcc.git testsuite: XFAIL ssa-sink-18.c also on powerpc64 [PR111462] powerpc64-linux apparently (not very surprisingly) behaves the same way as powerpc64le-linux and has 4 sunk statements rather than 5, so we should xfail it on powerpc64*-*-* rather than just powerpc64le-*-*. powerpc-linux has 3 sunk statements, but the scan pattern is done for lp64 only as the comment explains. 2024-02-28 Jakub Jelinek PR testsuite/111462 * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-18.c: XFAIL also on powerpc64. --- diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-18.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-18.c index b199df26a0f6..3615cec069e5 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-18.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-18.c @@ -213,6 +213,6 @@ compute_on_bytes (uint8_t *in_data, int in_len, uint8_t *out_data, int out_len) expected, so this case is restricted to lp64 only so far. This different ivopts choice affects riscv64 as well, probably because it also lacks base+index addressing modes, so the ip[len] address computation can't be - made from the IV computation above. powerpc64le similarly is affected. */ + made from the IV computation above. powerpc64{,le} similarly is affected. */ - /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Sunk statements: 5" 1 "sink2" { target lp64 xfail { riscv64-*-* powerpc64le-*-* hppa*64*-*-* } } } } */ + /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Sunk statements: 5" 1 "sink2" { target lp64 xfail { riscv64-*-* powerpc64*-*-* hppa*64*-*-* } } } } */