Pushed.
PR testsuite/111462
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-18.c: XFAIL also powerpc64le.
---
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-18.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-18.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-18.c
index 13b9ba4f70f..1372100882e 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-18.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-18.c
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
/* { dg-do compile } */
-/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-sink-stats" } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-sink2-stats" } */
/* { dg-require-effective-target int32plus } */
#include <stdint.h>
@@ -213,6 +213,6 @@ compute_on_bytes (uint8_t *in_data, int in_len, uint8_t
*out_data, int out_len)
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. */
+ made from the IV computation above. powerpc64le similarly is affected. */
- /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Sunk statements: 5" 1 "sink2" { target
lp64 xfail { riscv64-*-* } } } } */
+ /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Sunk statements: 5" 1 "sink2" { target
lp64 xfail { riscv64-*-* powerpc64le-*-* } } } } */
--
2.35.3
