------- Comment #5 from tprince at computer dot org 2007-04-27 17:02 ------- According to my test of Dorit's updated patch, the following are now PASS: vect-iv-9.c vect-iv-4.c pr30771.c The patch changed FAIL to XFAIL for the following vect-reduc-dot-u16b.c vect-widen-mult-u16.c vect-reduc-dot-u16a.c The following still reports a FAIL: PASS: gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-69.c (test for excess errors) Setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH to :/home/tim/src/gcc-4.3-20070413/ia64/gcc::/home/tim/src/gcc-4.3-20070413/ia64/gcc:/opt/intel/fc/9.1.045/lib:/opt/intel/mpi/3.0/lib PASS: gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-69.c execution test PASS: gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-69.c scan-tree-dump-times vectorized 4 loops 1 PASS: gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-69.c scan-tree-dump-times Vectorizing an unaligned access 0 FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-69.c scan-tree-dump-times Alignment of access forced using peeling 3
Is it possible the xfail pattern does not match ia64-unknown-linux-gnu ? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31589