https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118611
--- Comment #9 from Richard Sandiford <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #7) > Unfortunately, although the patch solves the problem but it adds 2 x86-64 > failures of tests expecting smaller number of moves. It also adds 2 > failures for aarch64 tests but I found the code quality is the same > (probably something wrong with regexps used to check the assembler code). Yeah, this is more than possible. Please don't reject the patch based on the aarch64 failures if the output code looks as good. And please leave us to do the testsuite update if you prefer. Although I realise it's controversial, I'm personally a big fan of using tests to “defend” code quality, not just correctness. The aarch64 testsuite now does that quite heavily. But the downside is that sometimes new FAILs are harmless, or even improvements. In the latter case, the response is to change the test to “defend” the new output. In the former case, the response is to generalise the test to accept both forms. I do try to look out for cases where regexps are too strict (and I'm sure others do too), but it's easy to miss cases.
