From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14620 invoked by alias); 20 Mar 2012 02:33:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 14591 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Mar 2012 02:33:04 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 02:32:41 +0000 From: "liujiangning at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug testsuite/52563] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-[3,4].c scan-tree-dump-times optimized "&a" 1 Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 06:08:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: testsuite X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: liujiangning at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-03/txt/msg01561.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52563 --- Comment #6 from Jiangning Liu 2012-03-20 02:32:12 UTC --- > We cannot fix it without relaxing the POINTER_PLUS_EXPR constraints. > I was working on that, but as usual the TYPE_IS_SIZETYPE removal > has priority. Do you mean you are also working on removing TYPE_IS_SIZETYPE? > > Please consider fixing/XFAILing the testcases as they still FAIL and you > are responsible for this. You can open a new enhancement PR covering > this. > I think 64-bit mode should also have this optimization enabled. XFAIL implies the missing of this optimization is a correct behavior. But I think this is not what I expected. So I don't think we should add XFAIL for this case. Instead I want to add a new test case scev-5.c to cover 64-bit testing. Thanks, -Jiangning