From: Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 10:07:21 +0000 (+0200)
Subject: [nvptx, testsuite] Disable default xfails
X-Git-Url: https://git.libre-soc.org/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=49451c5ef42b8512563470ce2f5eaeab7c1f8380;p=gcc.git

[nvptx, testsuite] Disable default xfails

For nvptx, I run into a couple of XPASSes due to nvptx not being listed in:
...
  { xfail { ! { long list of targets } } }
...

Add nvptx to the list to get a PASS.  Tested on nvptx.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

2020-10-15  Tom de Vries  <tdevries@suse.de>

	* gcc.dg/attr-alloc_size-11.c: Don't xfail for nvptx.
	* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20040204-1.c: Same.
---

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/attr-alloc_size-11.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/attr-alloc_size-11.c
index a3d95c4e587..8332b39930c 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/attr-alloc_size-11.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/attr-alloc_size-11.c
@@ -47,8 +47,8 @@ typedef __SIZE_TYPE__    size_t;
 
 /* The following tests fail because of missing range information.  The xfail
    exclusions are PR79356.  */
-TEST (signed char, SCHAR_MIN + 2, ALLOC_MAX);   /* { dg-warning "argument 1 range \\\[13, \[0-9\]+\\\] exceeds maximum object size 12" "missing range info for signed char" { xfail { ! { aarch64*-*-* arm*-*-* avr-*-* alpha*-*-* ia64-*-* mips*-*-* or1k*-*-* pdp11*-*-* powerpc*-*-* sparc*-*-* s390*-*-* visium-*-* msp430-*-* } } } } */
-TEST (short, SHRT_MIN + 2, ALLOC_MAX); /* { dg-warning "argument 1 range \\\[13, \[0-9\]+\\\] exceeds maximum object size 12" "missing range info for short" { xfail { ! { aarch64*-*-* arm*-*-* alpha*-*-* avr-*-* ia64-*-* mips*-*-* or1k*-*-* pdp11*-*-* powerpc*-*-* sparc*-*-* s390x-*-* visium-*-* msp430-*-* } } } } */
+TEST (signed char, SCHAR_MIN + 2, ALLOC_MAX);   /* { dg-warning "argument 1 range \\\[13, \[0-9\]+\\\] exceeds maximum object size 12" "missing range info for signed char" { xfail { ! { aarch64*-*-* arm*-*-* avr-*-* alpha*-*-* ia64-*-* mips*-*-* or1k*-*-* pdp11*-*-* powerpc*-*-* sparc*-*-* s390*-*-* visium-*-* msp430-*-* nvptx*-*-*} } } } */
+TEST (short, SHRT_MIN + 2, ALLOC_MAX); /* { dg-warning "argument 1 range \\\[13, \[0-9\]+\\\] exceeds maximum object size 12" "missing range info for short" { xfail { ! { aarch64*-*-* arm*-*-* alpha*-*-* avr-*-* ia64-*-* mips*-*-* or1k*-*-* pdp11*-*-* powerpc*-*-* sparc*-*-* s390x-*-* visium-*-* msp430-*-* nvptx*-*-* } } } } */
 TEST (int, INT_MIN + 2, ALLOC_MAX);    /* { dg-warning "argument 1 range \\\[13, \[0-9\]+\\\] exceeds maximum object size 12" } */
 TEST (int, -3, ALLOC_MAX);             /* { dg-warning "argument 1 range \\\[13, \[0-9\]+\\\] exceeds maximum object size 12" } */
 TEST (int, -2, ALLOC_MAX);             /* { dg-warning "argument 1 range \\\[13, \[0-9\]+\\\] exceeds maximum object size 12" } */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20040204-1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20040204-1.c
index b7d50ecd6d6..b9f8fd21ac9 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20040204-1.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20040204-1.c
@@ -33,4 +33,4 @@ void test55 (int x, int y)
    that the && should be emitted (based on BRANCH_COST).  Fix this
    by teaching dom to look through && and register all components
    as true.  */
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "link_error" 0 "optimized" { xfail { ! "alpha*-*-* arm*-*-* aarch64*-*-* powerpc*-*-* cris-*-* hppa*-*-* i?86-*-* mmix-*-* mips*-*-* m68k*-*-* moxie-*-* nds32*-*-* s390*-*-* sh*-*-* sparc*-*-* visium-*-* x86_64-*-* riscv*-*-* or1k*-*-* msp430-*-* pru*-*-*" } } } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "link_error" 0 "optimized" { xfail { ! "alpha*-*-* arm*-*-* aarch64*-*-* powerpc*-*-* cris-*-* hppa*-*-* i?86-*-* mmix-*-* mips*-*-* m68k*-*-* moxie-*-* nds32*-*-* s390*-*-* sh*-*-* sparc*-*-* visium-*-* x86_64-*-* riscv*-*-* or1k*-*-* msp430-*-* pru*-*-* nvptx*-*-*" } } } } */