[PATCH testsuite]XFAIL tests for -funsafe-loop-optimizations

[Bin Cheng]

Hi,
The previous patch removes support for -funsafe-loop-optimizations on GIMPLE, 
as a follow up, this one marks related tests as XFAIL for the moment.  I would 
like to either remove/rewrite the case after -funsafe-loop-optimization is 
fully dicarded?  
Tests checked.  Is it OK?

Thanks,
bin

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
2016-06-27  Bin Cheng  <bin.ch...@arm.com>

        * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr19210-1.c: xfail unsafe loop opt warnings.
        * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr19210-2.c: Ditto.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr19210-1.c 
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr19210-1.c
index 906132c..06713bd 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr19210-1.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr19210-1.c
@@ -6,10 +6,10 @@ void
 f (unsigned n)
 {
   unsigned k;
-  for(k = 0;k <= n;k++) /* { dg-warning "cannot optimize.*infinite loops" } */
+  for(k = 0;k <= n;k++) /* { dg-warning "cannot optimize.*infinite loops" "" { 
xfail *-*-* } } */
     g();
 
-  for(k = 0;k <= n;k += 4) /* { dg-warning "cannot optimize.*overflow" } */
+  for(k = 0;k <= n;k += 4) /* { dg-warning "cannot optimize.*overflow" "" { 
xfail *-*-* } } */
     g();
 
   /* We used to get warning for this loop.  However, since then # of iterations
@@ -21,9 +21,9 @@ f (unsigned n)
     g();
 
   /* So we need the following loop, instead.  */
-  for(k = 4;k <= n;k += 5) /* { dg-warning "cannot optimize.*overflow" } */
+  for(k = 4;k <= n;k += 5) /* { dg-warning "cannot optimize.*overflow" "" { 
xfail *-*-* } } */
     g();
   
-  for(k = 15;k >= n;k--) /* { dg-warning "cannot optimize.*infinite" } */
+  for(k = 15;k >= n;k--) /* { dg-warning "cannot optimize.*infinite" "" { 
xfail *-*-* } } */
     g();
 }
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr19210-2.c 
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr19210-2.c
index 9116e97..f258085 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr19210-2.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr19210-2.c
@@ -6,10 +6,10 @@ void
 f (unsigned n)
 {
   unsigned k;
-  for(k = 0;k <= n;k++) /* { dg-warning "assuming.*not infinite" } */
+  for(k = 0;k <= n;k++) /* { dg-warning "assuming.*not infinite" "" { xfail 
*-*-*  } } */
     g();
 
-  for(k = 5;k <= n;k += 4) /* { dg-warning "assuming.*not overflow" } */
+  for(k = 5;k <= n;k += 4) /* { dg-warning "assuming.*not overflow" "" { xfail 
*-*-*  } } */
     g();
 
   /* We used to get warning for this loop.  However, since then # of iterations
@@ -20,10 +20,10 @@ f (unsigned n)
   for(k = 5;k <= n;k += 5)
     g();
 
-  for(k = 4;k <= n;k += 5) /* { dg-warning "assuming.*not overflow" } */
+  for(k = 4;k <= n;k += 5) /* { dg-warning "assuming.*not overflow" "" { xfail 
*-*-*  } } */
     g();
 
-  for(k = 15;k >= n;k--) /* { dg-warning "assuming.*not infinite" } */
+  for(k = 15;k >= n;k--) /* { dg-warning "assuming.*not infinite" "" { xfail 
*-*-*  } } */
     g();
 
 }