https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118025

--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva <aol...@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:261ffe685f3865ea61599d61d6b32b92e476a342

commit r15-6771-g261ffe685f3865ea61599d61d6b32b92e476a342
Author: Alexandre Oliva <ol...@adacore.com>
Date:   Fri Jan 10 09:32:20 2025 -0300

    testsuite: generalize ifcombine field-merge tests [PR118025]

    A number of tests that check for specific ifcombine transformations
    fail on AVR and PRU targets, whose type sizes and alignments aren't
    conducive of the expected transformations.  Adjust the expectations.

    Most execution tests should run successfully regardless of the
    transformations, but a few that could conceivably fail if short and
    char have the same bit width now check for that and bypass the tests
    that would fail.

    Conversely, one test that had such a runtime test, but that would work
    regardless, no longer has that runtime test, and its types are
    narrowed so that the transformations on 32-bit targets are more likely
    to be the same as those that used to take place on 64-bit targets.
    This latter change is somewhat obviated by a separate patch, but I've
    left it in place anyway.


    for  gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

            PR testsuite/118025
            * gcc.dg/field-merge-1.c: Skip BIT_FIELD_REF counting on AVR and
PRU.
            * gcc.dg/field-merge-3.c: Bypass the test if short doesn't have the
            expected size.
            * gcc.dg/field-merge-8.c: Likewise.
            * gcc.dg/field-merge-9.c: Likewise.  Skip optimization counting on
            AVR and PRU.
            * gcc.dg/field-merge-13.c: Skip optimization counting on AVR and
PRU.
            * gcc.dg/field-merge-15.c: Likewise.
            * gcc.dg/field-merge-17.c: Likewise.
            * gcc.dg/field-merge-16.c: Likewise.  Drop runtime bypass.  Use
            smaller types.
            * gcc.dg/field-merge-14.c: Add comments.

Reply via email to