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 28352384CB97; Wed, 15 May 2024 16:16:21 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 28352384CB97
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1715789781;
	bh=cZoIkrj4auu53tj58nmJouZTcFq6uEkVtJXK/6u81/k=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=qscHqWbRuSpmwSElvMeaUKN1E3E5PBUSKnHrmW+GGT6UdzouP2bdt3zsr3PPZRwhG
	 mAZPuateTZGl1wmw6g9wbJWEpb6euB6WSQog6aHmxeR9p6O+COJ1yzZk00yQIkrjxO
	 Rsvb2kQ5MB2HgdQKDdk6F5bvL+9BX5eDusxbVv+s=
From: "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/64835] -fno-ipa-cp is inconsitently supported when
 attributes optimize or target are used
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 16:16:20 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: opt-attribute
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-64835-4-0uUsfsIGTh@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-64835-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-64835-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D64835

--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Eric,  gcc.dg/ipa/iinline-attr.c XPASSes on 64-bit SPARC since
>=20
> commit ffabce849033e57ebaf60029822b81e981681c21
> Author: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com>
> Date:   Tue Nov 29 11:43:32 2022 +0100
>=20
>     Couple of testsuite adjustments
>=20=20=20=20=20
>     gcc/testsuite/
>             * gcc.dg/ipa/iinline-attr.c: XFAIL on SPARC.
>=20
> while the 32-bit test is XFAILed.  Should we restrict the xfail to 32-bit
> sparc then?

The reason why it has been XFAILed does not depend on the word size though.=