On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 01:42:04PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> 2018-03-20 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
>
> * testsuite/libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-4.c: XFAIL one
> parallelizable loop.
>
> Index: libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-4.c
> ===================================================================
> --- libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-4.c (revision
> 258678)
> +++ libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-4.c (working copy)
> @@ -46,7 +46,10 @@ int main(void)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -/* Check that parallel code generation part make the right answer. */
> -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "2 loops carried no dependency" 1
> "graphite" } } */
> +/* Check that parallel code generation part make the right answer.
> + ??? XFAILed for i1 because conditional store elimination wrecks
> + our dependence representation. */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "2 loops carried no dependency" 1
> "graphite" { xfail *-*-* } } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "1 loops carried no dependency" 1
> "graphite" } } */
Shouldn't this line be then "\[12] loops carried no dependency" 1 "graphite" }
} */
so that when the previous starts XPASSing, we don't actually get a new FAIL?
> /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "loopfn.0" 4 "optimized" } } */
> /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "loopfn.1" 4 "optimized" } } */
Jakub
