From patchwork Wed Feb 28 11:13:09 2024 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Jakub Jelinek X-Patchwork-Id: 1905670 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@legolas.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: legolas.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=cNIprnO4; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: legolas.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=gcc.gnu.org (client-ip=2620:52:3:1:0:246e:9693:128c; helo=server2.sourceware.org; envelope-from=gcc-patches-bounces+incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@gcc.gnu.org; receiver=patchwork.ozlabs.org) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [IPv6:2620:52:3:1:0:246e:9693:128c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1) server-digest SHA384) (No client certificate requested) by legolas.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4TlBYd2Qsrz23qW for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 22:13:40 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC71B3858403 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 11:13:37 +0000 (GMT) X-Original-To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DF113858C52 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 11:13:15 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 3DF113858C52 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 3DF113858C52 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1709118797; cv=none; b=gDyhVf226Sol+/YfbEWBto17O9xKpqc84i2O/6mg4ZruVcYTZlCcvdF5KZeiyDJlzXIr2nx5szhqr9S0DH5ENlwCULIFdDWmrgVdA3DEJQG8o78LfqNcX2WsYV4amP2q531wCgGwhamB4+nUPbsPrA+MEG9J97Vk3XfyS+12RTE= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1709118797; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/xlJONjcXof2TegQgWkWb6z01IzP0Tax0FBJjeAioNE=; h=DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=lkt/rkPkc6rPl5kOV8z/62UOLvWWDzqVvlzvugtms0bJJejRW685F2MsaSTYB5296Ds1fAE3FS0ISrDJledALFrkd8a+WuM1TDfZrcNh6JWPYDrCKLbhmlr1p1oNmbdnrFXMbG7iiCcYXd8nCewM1iHc/W0ajpvfx/+L2B09SKA= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1709118794; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type; bh=Owb7K6kJcyh1Tn6thupxFwIu3kmxCDJXgZbtgu77VL4=; b=cNIprnO4wq8L6J6oKV00mmopmyeSEe6JreOXV3MDntK2pesZX2WFXQq5W0yM1xa1LZRtvA CbEukmDBma/DuIIh1p1DZAKh1xLIyfXvDql0zMOhter6P93O7FrKCxmedDPjPlE+KaLdsm DUiuLx+qyc2W+hu8R7anKw8pLjOBh38= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx-ext.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-104-mI0UkmIGPiu1DwcDd2rnNQ-1; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 06:13:13 -0500 X-MC-Unique: mI0UkmIGPiu1DwcDd2rnNQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53CB9381200C; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 11:13:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.39.192.25]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 170E510793; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 11:13:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 41SBDAxp3022813 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 28 Feb 2024 12:13:10 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 41SBD9bO3022812; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 12:13:09 +0100 Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 12:13:09 +0100 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Richard Biener Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [committed] testsuite: XFAIL ssa-sink-18.c also on powerpc64 [PR111462] Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.5 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek Errors-To: gcc-patches-bounces+incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@gcc.gnu.org Hi! 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. Tested in a cross to powerpc64-linux with make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\{-m32,-m64\} tree-ssa.exp=ssa-sink-18.c' and committed to trunk as obvious. 2024-02-28 Jakub Jelinek PR testsuite/111462 * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-18.c: XFAIL also on powerpc64. Jakub --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-18.c.jj 2024-01-09 09:22:57.685124089 +0100 +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-18.c 2024-02-28 12:05:38.040579565 +0100 @@ -213,6 +213,6 @@ compute_on_bytes (uint8_t *in_data, int 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*-*-* } } } } */