From dc40dc7220cde30659c86ce90ed3643f409fa788 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tom Stellard Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 15:05:07 +0100 Subject: [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 80e278e51194..dcd83f9d5f78 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, sparc, loongarch +; XFAIL: powerpc64, aarch64, arm64, hexagon, riscv, sparc, loongarch, ppc64le ; Build from the following source with clang -O2. -- 2.37.1