From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19327 invoked by alias); 14 Jun 2011 09:10:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 19316 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jun 2011 09:10:30 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mel.act-europe.fr (HELO mel.act-europe.fr) (194.98.77.210) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:10:11 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56372CB0375; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:10:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mel.act-europe.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.eu.adacore.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3CMMjgEqAn3g; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:10:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (bon31-9-83-155-120-49.fbx.proxad.net [83.155.120.49]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mel.act-europe.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FE77CB038A; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:10:01 +0200 (CEST) From: Eric Botcazou To: Jakub Jelinek Subject: Re: [PATCH] Only run pr48377.c testcase on i?86/x86_64 Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:37:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <20110603135911.GD17079@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20110603135911.GD17079@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201106141110.13545.ebotcazou@adacore.com> Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg01018.txt.bz2 > This limits this testcase to i?86/x86_64 (moving to gcc.target/ would > be harder because it relies on all the weirdo vectorization options to be > passed), because apparently on strict alignment targets we don't handle > aligned (1) non-aggregates correctly. Or should it be instead xfailed > just on selected strict-aligned targets? The 6.4.1 release is approaching so please install the patch for now. TIA. -- Eric Botcazou