From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23831 invoked by alias); 2 Feb 2015 15:47:25 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 23781 invoked by uid 89); 2 Feb 2015 15:47:25 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: smtp-relay.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE Received: from snape.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (HELO smtp-relay.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE) (129.70.160.84) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 15:47:23 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-relay.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A13BB04; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 16:47:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp-relay.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (malfoy.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id LnhKg6GVFHXA; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 16:47:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from lokon.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (lokon.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE [129.70.161.110]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-relay.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4427BB03; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 16:47:19 +0100 (CET) Received: (from ro@localhost) by lokon.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (8.14.7+Sun/8.14.7/Submit) id t12FlIPY023931; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 16:47:18 +0100 (CET) From: Rainer Orth To: Alan Lawrence Cc: "gcc-patches\@gcc.gnu.org" , Mike Stump Subject: Re: [PATCH] Relax check against commuting XOR and ASHIFTRT in combine.c References: <53B1B4FE.7010201@arm.com> <53B1D271.5000405@redhat.com> <53C69926.4050503@arm.com> <53C80023.6000100@arm.com> <5409FBB1.3040509@redhat.com> <541AA89C.9070005@arm.com> <87ppe70wld.fsf@igel.home> <5449326C.9040301@arm.com> <544A3D6E.4000408@arm.com> <544A8698.5060309@arm.com> <54CF8AA9.1070303@arm.com> Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 15:47:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <54CF8AA9.1070303@arm.com> (Alan Lawrence's message of "Mon, 02 Feb 2015 14:33:13 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (usg-unix-v) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg00058.txt.bz2 Hi Alan, >> I'm still not really comfortable with those target lists; they tend to >> artificially exclude tests on targets where they are perfectly capable >> of running. At least with the comments added, it's better than before >> with no explanation whatsoever. Perhaps Mike can weigh in here? > > Well, it's been awhile, but on further reflection - my feeling is that we > should be dropping the target lists here too. Maybe we end up introducing a > dg-skip-if that grows over time, but it'd have to grow quite a bit to reach > the size of the dg-do target we'd otherwise have... It's not even necessary to use dg-skip if the scan-rtl-dump fails. You can just add an xfail there, which has the advantage that you do notice if the test starts to pass e.g. due to changes in a target. > However I am a bit wary about dropping the dg-do target constraint just as > we are nearing a release! So if we were to keep the whitelist approach, > your patch looks good to me, and I'd be happy if that were committed. Let's give others a day or two to comment: if nobody is in favour of the more agressive approach, I'll commit my patch. Thanks. Rainer -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University