https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119298
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9) > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8) > > (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #7) > [...] > > > return false; > > > ... > > > case scalar_stmt: > > > return fp ? ix86_cost->addss : COSTS_N_INSNS (1); > > > > we shouldn't get here, the add_stmt_cost "hook" handles operations > > separately. > > > > > .... > > > case vector_stmt: > > > return ix86_vec_cost (mode, > > > fp ? ix86_cost->addss : ix86_cost->sse_op); > > > > I'm not sure why we use addss cost in case of FP mode. So this would be > > the only two places to try fixing. > > > > The question is for which ops we fall back here. The following might tell: > > > > diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > > index 4f8380c4a58..fe1beefe732 100644 > > --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > > +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > > @@ -25346,6 +25346,7 @@ ix86_vector_costs::add_stmt_cost (int count, > > vect_cost_for_stmt kind, > > stmt_cost = ix86_cost->add; > > break; > > default: > > + gcc_unreachable (); > > break; > > } > > } > > OK, it's a quite incomplete set. I would suggest to fix the fallback to > use sse_op and never addss. Or avoid reducing the addss cost alltogether > as a simpler thing for now. Btw, it was your r8-4018-gf6fd8f2bd4e9a9 which added the FP vs. non-FP difference.
