PR testsuite/111462 - add powerpc64le to list of ssa-sink-18.c XFAIL

	PR testsuite/111462
gcc/testsuite/
	* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-18.c: XFAIL also powerpc64le.

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 13b9ba4f70f5516f97d1dc30e08b60935b1c302b..1372100882e49a5929d0c504ad12a36d24324f74 100644 (file)
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-18.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-18.c
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 /* { dg-do compile } */
-/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-sink-stats" } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-sink2-stats" } */
 /* { dg-require-effective-target int32plus } */
 
 #include <stdint.h>
@@ -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.  */
+    made from the IV computation above.  powerpc64le similarly is affected.  */
 
- /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Sunk statements: 5" 1 "sink2" { target lp64 xfail { riscv64-*-* } } } } */
+ /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Sunk statements: 5" 1 "sink2" { target lp64 xfail { riscv64-*-* powerpc64le-*-* } } } } */