| 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334 |
- From 9320ffeda3915c8f7be744c983a3470a89107bd7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
- From: Tom Stellard <tstellar@redhat.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 20:21:20 -0700
- 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 bd0de60268b6..cc5d56b0c512 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
- +; XFAIL: powerpc64, aarch64, arm64, hexagon, ppc64le
-
- ; Build from the following source with clang -O2.
-
- --
- 2.31.1
|
