https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84534
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #8 from Peter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84534
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84534
--- Comment #6 from Peter Bergner ---
Author: bergner
Date: Fri Mar 2 02:54:40 2018
New Revision: 258122
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258122=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/84534
* gcc.target/powerpc/vec-setup-be-long.c: Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84534
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84534
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84534
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Actually, it is not a failure. I believe it is an improvement. We have less
move insns now. The easiest way to fix is to change the expected move insns to
the current number.
I'd prefer changing the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84534
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
xxlor counting failures are really common for powerpc test cases. Perhaps we
should look at all the ones that do that to see if those xxlor count checks are
actually testing for anything useful?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84534
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84534
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
