On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 01:38:57PM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi Jakub,
>
> On 15/04/16 13:26, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 01:22:52PM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> >>As reported (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg00094.html)
> >>these two tests now fail to perform shrinkwrapping after a regalloc change,
> >>but at least on arm the resulting code is not worse (not clear if better
> >>either).
> >>
> >>They have also been reported to fail on powerpc
> >>
> >>One of the proposed solutions for now is to XFAIL them on arm and powerpc,
> >>which
> >>is what this patch does.
> >>
> >>Is this ok for GCC 6? Or would you like to remove arm and powerpc from the
> >>tested
> >>targets for this altogether?
> >Please add there a comment referencing the PR70681 as the reason for the
> >xfail. Just grep around other xfails to see how is that usually written.
>
> Sorry, grepping around the testsuite I think I'm missing something.
> The only place where I can add a comment to an xfail is on
> "dg-xfail-if" standalone directives that xfail the whole test, whereas
> here we want to xfail just the shrinkwrapping RTL dump, and I don't see that
> taking a message argument.
Sorry, I've swapped xfail and dg-skip-if in my mind, for the latter we have
comments.
> Did you mean just adding a comment to the code itself, like:
>
> /* XFAIL due to PR70681. */
> /* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump "Performing shrink-wrapping" "pro_and_epilogue"
> { xfail arm*-*-* powerpc*-*-* } } } */
But yeah, this LGTM. Thanks.
Jakub
