[PATCH] testsuite: xfail scev-[35].c on ia32

[Alexandre Oliva <oliva@adacore.com>]

These gimplefe tests never got the desired optimization on ia32, but
they only started visibly failing when the representation of MEMs in
dumps changed from printing 'symbol: a' to '&a'.

The transformation is not considered profitable on ia32, that's why it
doesn't take place.  Maybe that's a bug in itself, but it's not a
regression, and not something to be noisy about.

Regstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu, also tested with gcc-13 on i686- and
x86_64-.  Ok to install?

(Richi, is the non-optimization choice on ia32 something unexpected that
ought to be looked into?  I could file a PR, and maybe even look into it
a bit further.)


for  gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

	* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-3.c: xfail on ia32.
	* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-5.c: Likewise.

Issue: gcc#155
TN: W517-007
---
 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-3.c |    2 +-
 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-5.c |    2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-3.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-3.c
index 4babd33f5c062..ac8c8d4519e30 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-3.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-3.c
@@ -40,4 +40,4 @@ __BB(6):
 
 }
 
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "&a" 1 "ivopts" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "&a" 1 "ivopts" { xfail ia32 } } } */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-5.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-5.c
index c2feebdfc2489..c911a9298866f 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-5.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-5.c
@@ -40,4 +40,4 @@ __BB(6):
 
 }
 
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "&a" 1 "ivopts" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "&a" 1 "ivopts" { xfail ia32 } } } */

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker            https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
   Free Software Activist                   GNU Toolchain Engineer
More tolerance and less prejudice are key for inclusion and diversity
Excluding neuro-others for not behaving ""normal"" is *not* inclusive