Committed!
On 12/6/2023 8:22 AM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
On Tue, 05 Dec 2023 16:39:06 PST (-0800), e...@rivosinc.com wrote:
Ran the test case at 122e7b4f9d0c2d54d865272463a1d812002d0a5c where
the xfail
That's the original port submission, I'm actually kind of surprised it
still builds/works at all.
was introduced. The test did pass at that hash and has continued to
pass since
then. Remove the xfail
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-fre-3.c: Remove xfail
Signed-off-by: Edwin Lu <e...@rivosinc.com>
---
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-fre-3.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-fre-3.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-fre-3.c
index 224dd4f72ef..b2924837a22 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-fre-3.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-fre-3.c
@@ -18,4 +18,4 @@ foo (int a, int b)
return aa + bb;
}
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "Replaced \\\(int\\\) aa_.*with a_"
"fre1" { xfail { riscv*-*-* && lp64 } } } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "Replaced \\\(int\\\) aa_.*with a_"
"fre1" } } */
Reviewed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <pal...@rivosinc.com>
Though Kito did all the test suite stuff back then, so not sure if he
happens to remember anything specific about what was going on.
Thanks!
