On 02/14/2013 10:02 AM, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
> Hi,
> here's a patch that adds a testcase for PR 55987.
> Is xfail the right thing to use here? I went with that since I guess the
> PR won't be fixed anytime soon ;)
>
> I haven't assigned copyright to the FSF -- is this patch small enough to
> go in without it?
>
> Thanks,
> Tilman
I would prefer to add the test after the bug has been fixed.
Tests for unfixed bugs clutter up the test suite.
Janis
> 2013-02-14 Tilman Sauerbeck <til...@code-monkey.de>
>
> PR target/55987
> * gcc.target/arm/pr55987.c: New.
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr55987.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr55987.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..7dd9de0
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr55987.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2" } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times ".word" 1 { xfail *-*-* } } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "bic" { xfail *-*-* } } } */
> +
> +unsigned f(unsigned x, unsigned y)
> +{
> + unsigned c = 0x7f7f7f7f;
> +
> + return (x & c) ^ (y & ~c);
> +}
>
>
