testsuite: XFAIL ssa-sink-18.c also on powerpc64 [PR111462]

powerpc64-linux apparently (not very surprisingly) behaves the same
way as powerpc64le-linux and has 4 sunk statements rather than 5,
so we should xfail it on powerpc64*-*-* rather than just powerpc64le-*-*.
powerpc-linux has 3 sunk statements, but the scan pattern is done for
lp64 only as the comment explains.

2024-02-28  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

	PR testsuite/111462
	* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-18.c: XFAIL also on powerpc64.

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-18.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-18.c
index b199df26a0f6fcbc7ce3a0071f5619e1f08ce579..3615cec069e547f2a45f2dc93fd2b169b31588f4 100644 (file)
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-18.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-18.c
@@ -213,6 +213,6 @@ compute_on_bytes (uint8_t *in_data, int in_len, uint8_t *out_data, int out_len)
     expected, so this case is restricted to lp64 only so far.  This different
     ivopts choice affects riscv64 as well, probably because it also lacks
     base+index addressing modes, so the ip[len] address computation can't be
-    made from the IV computation above.  powerpc64le similarly is affected.  */
+    made from the IV computation above.  powerpc64{,le} similarly is affected.  */
 
- /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Sunk statements: 5" 1 "sink2" { target lp64 xfail { riscv64-*-* powerpc64le-*-* hppa*64*-*-* } } } } */
+ /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Sunk statements: 5" 1 "sink2" { target lp64 xfail { riscv64-*-* powerpc64*-*-* hppa*64*-*-* } } } } */