From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 67CEF3896C1A; Mon, 10 Jan 2022 11:14:42 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 67CEF3896C1A
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug testsuite/103935] [12 regression] g++.dg/vect/slp-pr98855.cc
 fails after r12-6273
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2022 11:14:42 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: testsuite
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: testsuite-fail
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-103935-4-RwHIBB06lS@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-103935-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-103935-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2022 11:14:42 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D103935

--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Uro=C5=A1 Bizjak from comment #3)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > no longer xfailed.  I suggest to re-add the { xfail *-*-* } to the
> > profitability check.
>=20
> You mean xfail for non-x86 targets?

Yes (if it now works consistently on x86 targets)=