Re: [PATCH v2] testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr111456-1.c: Handle fallout

On Sun, Dec 8, 2024 at 7:58 PM Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > v2: oops, typo: component is tree-optimization, not tree-ssa. > Resent for the benefit of autotesters that don't yet > understand natural language. > > Forcing a fail and marking as xfail is IMHO better than > passing --param=logical-op-

Re: [PATCH v2] testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr111456-1.c: Handle fallout

Hans-Peter Nilsson writes: > v2: oops, typo: component is tree-optimization, not tree-ssa. > Resent for the benefit of autotesters that don't yet > understand natural language. > > Forcing a fail and marking as xfail is IMHO better than > passing --param=logical-op-non-short-circuit=0 or #pragma

Re: [PATCH v2] testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr111456-1.c: Handle fallout

> From: Sam James > Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2024 19:06:12 + > Hans-Peter Nilsson writes: > > > v2: oops, typo: component is tree-optimization, not tree-ssa. > > Resent for the benefit of autotesters that don't yet > > understand natural language. > > > > Forcing a fail and marking as xfail is IMH

[PATCH v2] testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr111456-1.c: Handle fallout

v2: oops, typo: component is tree-optimization, not tree-ssa. Resent for the benefit of autotesters that don't yet understand natural language. Forcing a fail and marking as xfail is IMHO better than passing --param=logical-op-non-short-circuit=0 or #pragma GCC unroll, making the test pass. To wi