[Bug ipa/92548] FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-sra-12.c scan-ipa-dump-times sra "Will split parameter" 2

2020-02-29 Thread danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92548 John David Anglin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug ipa/92548] FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-sra-12.c scan-ipa-dump-times sra "Will split parameter" 2

2020-02-29 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92548 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by John David Anglin : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:38b1722d5d44c52e06a8694b8fa36793735e27d1 commit r10-6943-g38b1722d5d44c52e06a8694b8fa36793735e27d1 Author: John David Anglin

[Bug ipa/92548] FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-sra-12.c scan-ipa-dump-times sra "Will split parameter" 2

2020-02-05 Thread dave.anglin at bell dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92548 --- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 2020-02-05 1:31 p.m., jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > The problem is that IPA-SRA does not handle structures passed by > invisible reference and 32bit hppa uses it. I would suggest

[Bug ipa/92548] FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-sra-12.c scan-ipa-dump-times sra "Will split parameter" 2

2020-02-05 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92548 --- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor --- The problem is that IPA-SRA does not handle structures passed by invisible reference and 32bit hppa uses it. I would suggest xfailing the scan it like we did in PR77732. John, since you can actually run

[Bug ipa/92548] FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-sra-12.c scan-ipa-dump-times sra "Will split parameter" 2

2020-01-30 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92548 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug ipa/92548] FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-sra-12.c scan-ipa-dump-times sra "Will split parameter" 2

2019-11-18 Thread danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92548 --- Comment #1 from John David Anglin --- Revision 275550 was okay. Revision 276011 failed. Test was introduced in 275982.