From 49451c5ef42b8512563470ce2f5eaeab7c1f8380 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tom de Vries Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 12:07:21 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] [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 * gcc.dg/attr-alloc_size-11.c: Don't xfail for nvptx. * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20040204-1.c: Same. --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/attr-alloc_size-11.c | 4 ++-- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20040204-1.c | 2 +- 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) 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*-*-*" } } } } */ -- 2.30.2