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 17CCC3858418; Fri, 19 Jan 2024 16:48:42 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 17CCC3858418
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1705682923;
	bh=1iYqOH80783P132gbsxG/85txTl0isI5tfeZ9SJ1x7A=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=j2oJaZZMFztkSGELV41HcDbxVIbBDKjIZ1w9mDaU6h/LC9GP74UAYmKUDArCO80ZX
	 NMTULVC+f2cSvoCBm+m4bUb/k7dIowQXhnZaB/ffVYab4DSRhYTi4/dx7fu3A+t26H
	 bgR63kLN0GTE/tYWT+U+lIJfNvQh3eieLcEuln1c=
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: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 16:48:41 +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-tTwNJ5V6Ua@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 #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 o=
ld
mnemonic and found the new one.=