On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 10:48:30 PST (-0800), Vineet Gupta wrote:
On 12/6/23 08:22, Palmer Dabbelt 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.
Full
On 12/6/23 08:22, Palmer Dabbelt 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.
Full toolchain build would have been a stretch (matching pairing
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
Ran the test case at 122e7b4f9d0c2d54d865272463a1d812002d0a5c where the xfail
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
---