Hi!
powerpc64-linux apparently (not very surprisingly) behaves the same
way as powerpc64le-linux and has 4 sunk statements rather than 5,
so we should xfail it on powerpc64*-*-* rather than just powerpc64le-*-*.
powerpc-linux has 3 sunk statements, but the scan pattern is done for
lp64 only as the comment explains.
Tested in a cross to powerpc64-linux with
make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\{-m32,-m64\}
tree-ssa.exp=ssa-sink-18.c'
and committed to trunk as obvious.
2024-02-28 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
PR testsuite/111462
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-18.c: XFAIL also on powerpc64.
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-18.c.jj 2024-01-09
09:22:57.685124089 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-18.c 2024-02-28 12:05:38.040579565
+0100
@@ -213,6 +213,6 @@ compute_on_bytes (uint8_t *in_data, int
expected, so this case is restricted to lp64 only so far. This different
ivopts choice affects riscv64 as well, probably because it also lacks
base+index addressing modes, so the ip[len] address computation can't be
- made from the IV computation above. powerpc64le similarly is affected. */
+ made from the IV computation above. powerpc64{,le} similarly is affected.
*/
- /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Sunk statements: 5" 1 "sink2" { target
lp64 xfail { riscv64-*-* powerpc64le-*-* hppa*64*-*-* } } } } */
+ /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Sunk statements: 5" 1 "sink2" { target
lp64 xfail { riscv64-*-* powerpc64*-*-* hppa*64*-*-* } } } } */
Jakub
