From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 006823858CDB; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 21:42:18 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 006823858CDB
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1708378939;
	bh=NiAn+BjN0DlQlJChXq+Pwpql+K7o1bBRldGXkC3BD9I=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=ovbUibFwh67SmmjlL2fSFeo2H6fWO3m7Be4krj0dAVDoBlWp45zANHW1zkGl6slSp
	 vTpRbQhSFv7hxb7HqaHXUwMeSHi4uPQC8FsdvySJEIzl7WFaNMbxiHTTXtvPI7e0M1
	 yUQzeJUdJc9JSaNVp7m2pgfEFIasCizEdgm6iOi8=
From: "bergner at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/112103] [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/rlwinm-0.c
 fails after r14-4941-gd1bb9569d70304
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 21:42:18 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: testsuite-fail
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-112103-4-nEdSm2TRAM@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-112103-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-112103-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D112103

--- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner <bergner at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> So, let's just adjust the testcase then?

We still want to remove the superfluous instruction, but that should be cov=
ered
in a separate bug.  So yeah, I think this just needs a testsuite update.

Should we also drop the priority down too?  A P1 seems a little high for a
simple test case update.=