https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91333
--- Comment #16 from Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #15) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14) > > I think what matters is whether the new asm for those is the same or better > > than before. If the tests hardcode particular RA decisions, they'll > > obviously FAIL when something in the RA changes. > > The kind of change is from: > > mov z2.d, x0 > movprfx z0, z1 > uabd z0.d, p0/m, z0.d, z2.d > ret > > to: > > mov z0.d, x0 > mov z2.d, z0.d > movprfx z0, z1 > uabd z0.d, p0/m, z0.d, z2.d > ret > > so this is a genuine regression. Hi, Richard. Could you write me what options and test (I guess it is pr91333.c) you used.
