https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112103
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner <bergner at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #2) > In all those cases the code is perfectly fine, but also in all of those > cases the > code is still suboptimal: the rldicl is just as superfluous as the second > rlwinm > was! :-) So the superfluous second instruction is not really a regression, correct? All that changed with Roger's patch is we replaced a superfluous rlwinm with a superfluous rldicl, correct? ...which is what caused the testcase to FAIL given it was looking for the old mnemonic and found the new one.
