https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70681
Nick Clifton <nickc at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |nickc at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton <nickc at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Hi Guys,
I would like to close out this PR, so that it is no longer considered a
regression delaying the creation of the gcc 7 branch. I propose changing the
comments in the two test cases like this:
-/* XFAIL due to PR70681. */
+/* The XFAILs are because these targets produce better code without
+ shrinkwrapping, and hence the optimization is not triggered. See
+ PR70681 for more details. */
Which I think captures the essence of the reason for XFAILing.
I have verified that the ARM and POWERPC compilers do indeed produce code
sequences with fewer overall instructions, although the shorter code path
through the test functions is usually one instruction longer without the
shrinkwrapping. (But the longer code path is usually two or three instructions
shorter).
So - is it OK to apply the uploaded patch to the mainline ?
Cheers
Nick
