On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 08:01:29AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > It looks like the latter - I've seen no attempt by the original authors to
> > make the feature work on more targets than they cared for.
>
> On the other hand, if you hide the failures, there is essentially zero chance
> that
On 3/30/21 12:43 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> These test FAIL on s390*:
> /builddir/build/BUILD/gcc-11.0.1-20210324/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c:
> In function 'foo8':
> /builddir/build/BUILD/gcc-11.0.1-20210324/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c:71:1:
>
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 1:56 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 01:28:40PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > Ok to skip the test on s390* until then?
> >
> > Can we change the test to do
> >
> > { dg-skip-if "not implemented" { ! { target x86_64-*-* } } }
> >
> > instead? IIRC
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 01:28:40PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Ok to skip the test on s390* until then?
>
> Can we change the test to do
>
> { dg-skip-if "not implemented" { ! { target x86_64-*-* } } }
>
> instead? IIRC it's nowhere implemented but on x86_64.
I don't know, perhaps.
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 12:44 PM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> These test FAIL on s390*:
> /builddir/build/BUILD/gcc-11.0.1-20210324/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c:
> In function 'foo8':
>
Hi!
These test FAIL on s390*:
/builddir/build/BUILD/gcc-11.0.1-20210324/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c:
In function 'foo8':
/builddir/build/BUILD/gcc-11.0.1-20210324/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c:71:1:
sorry, unimplemented: '-fzero-call-used-regs' not
