Re: [PATCH testsuite]XFAIL gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr71347 on some targets

2016-07-15 Thread Jeff Law
On 07/15/2016 08:02 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote: On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 6:14 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 07/14/2016 10:11 AM, Bin Cheng wrote: Hi, Test gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr71347 failed on some targets if the two memory references are re-written into different forms by IVOPT. This could

Re: [PATCH testsuite]XFAIL gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr71347 on some targets

2016-07-15 Thread Bin.Cheng
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 6:14 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 07/14/2016 10:11 AM, Bin Cheng wrote: >> >> Hi, Test gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr71347 failed on some targets if the two >> memory references are re-written into different forms by IVOPT. This >> could be because of various reasons,

Re: [PATCH testsuite]XFAIL gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr71347 on some targets

2016-07-14 Thread Jeff Law
On 07/14/2016 10:11 AM, Bin Cheng wrote: Hi, Test gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr71347 failed on some targets if the two memory references are re-written into different forms by IVOPT. This could be because of various reasons, for example, auto-increment addressing mode. Since the address expressions are

[PATCH testsuite]XFAIL gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr71347 on some targets

2016-07-14 Thread Bin Cheng
Hi, Test gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr71347 failed on some targets if the two memory references are re-written into different forms by IVOPT. This could be because of various reasons, for example, auto-increment addressing mode. Since the address expressions are of different form, DOM fails to eliminate