Hi!

On 2024-04-19T12:30:25+0200, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 12:23:03PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>> On 2024-04-19T08:24:03+0200, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr114768.c.jj	2024-04-18 15:37:49.139433678 +0200
>> > +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr114768.c	2024-04-18 15:43:30.389730365 +0200
>> > @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
>> > +/* PR rtl-optimization/114768 */
>> > +/* { dg-do compile } */
>> > +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-rtl-final" } */
>> > +/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump "\\\(mem/v:" "final" { target { ! { nvptx*-*-* } } } } } */
>> > +
>> > +void
>> > +foo (int *p)
>> > +{
>> > +  *p = *(volatile int *) p;
>> > +}
>> 
>> Why exclude nvptx target here?  As far as I can see, it does behave in
>> the exactly same way as expected; see 'diff' of before vs. after the
>> 'gcc/rtlanal.cc' code changes:
>
> I wasn't sure if the non-RA targets (for which we don't have an effective
> target) even have final dump.
> If they do as you show, then guess the target guard can go.

ACK.  Pushed to trunk branch in
commit 9451b6c0a941dc44ca6f14ff8565d74fe56cca59
"Enable 'gcc.dg/pr114768.c' for nvptx target [PR114768]", see attached.


Grüße
 Thomas