https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68803
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68803
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Nov 21 22:29:34 2016
New Revision: 242681
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242681&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: rl[wd]imi without shift/rotate (PR68803)
We didn't have pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68803
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|7.0 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68803
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68803
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|SUSPENDED
Target Milestone|6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68803
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Jan 14 19:24:28 2016
New Revision: 232380
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232380&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
powerpc: Add some XFAILs to 20050603-3.c (PR68803)
In r230167 I mad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68803
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
I would expect them to if they ran it in 64-bit mode since the test in 5.3
looks for the "inm" pattern which matches the rlwinm instruction in gcc's
output. But in 5.3 and before the test was constrained to i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68803
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Do 4.9.2 and 5.3.0 actually fail the testcase? Huh?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68803
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6 regression] |gcc.vect/powerpc/20050603-3
