Shouldn't you revert 212077 instead? On Jun 30, 2014 10:04 PM, "Bob Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Author: bwilson > Date: Mon Jun 30 23:56:06 2014 > New Revision: 212091 > > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=212091&view=rev > Log: > Temporarily disable the indirect-goto.c test. > > llvm r212077 causes this test to fail. We need to reorder some passes and > possibly make other changes to reenable the optimization being tested here. > > Modified: > cfe/trunk/test/CodeGen/indirect-goto.c > > Modified: cfe/trunk/test/CodeGen/indirect-goto.c > URL: > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/CodeGen/indirect-goto.c?rev=212091&r1=212090&r2=212091&view=diff > > ============================================================================== > --- cfe/trunk/test/CodeGen/indirect-goto.c (original) > +++ cfe/trunk/test/CodeGen/indirect-goto.c Mon Jun 30 23:56:06 2014 > @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ > -// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple i386-unknown-unknown -O3 -emit-llvm -o - %s | > grep "ret i32 2520" > +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple i386-unknown-unknown -O3 -emit-llvm -o - %s > +// DISABLED: %clang_cc1 -triple i386-unknown-unknown -O3 -emit-llvm -o - > %s | grep "ret i32 2520" > > static int foo(unsigned i) { > void *addrs[] = { &&L1, &&L2, &&L3, &&L4, &&L5 }; > > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
