llvm/0002-PATCH-XFAIL-missing-abstract-variable.ll-test-on-ppc.patch

35 lines
1.4 KiB
Diff
Raw Normal View History

From ba4abd3a8f7b10ce43dd40943f5efaebb9c0f5b8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tom Stellard <tstellar@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 15:05:07 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] [PATCH] XFAIL missing-abstract-variable.ll test on
ppc64le
It's seems the strategy with this test is to XFAIL it on all
architectures that it fails on. I wonder if we should be passing
it a specific triple? Also, from what I can tell, this tests only
runs when llvm is configured with LLVM_DEFAULT_TARGET_TRIPLE set
to a non-empty value, which is why it may not fail in every build
configuration.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109806
---
llvm/test/DebugInfo/Generic/missing-abstract-variable.ll | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/llvm/test/DebugInfo/Generic/missing-abstract-variable.ll b/llvm/test/DebugInfo/Generic/missing-abstract-variable.ll
index 13fe09276534..53463505b521 100644
--- a/llvm/test/DebugInfo/Generic/missing-abstract-variable.ll
+++ b/llvm/test/DebugInfo/Generic/missing-abstract-variable.ll
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
; powerpc64 (and on x86_64 at at least -O2). Presumably this is a SelectionDAG
; issue.
; FIXME: arm64 is an alias for aarch64 on macs, apparently?
-; XFAIL: powerpc64, aarch64, arm64, hexagon, riscv
+; XFAIL: powerpc64, aarch64, arm64, hexagon, riscv, ppc64le
; Build from the following source with clang -O2.
--
2.31.1