On Wed, 9 Mar 2022, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 08:18:38AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > I wonder if this is a good case for general-regs-only instead? At
> > least no-sse cannot be functionally equivalent (since then we would
> > not have needed general-regs-only ...).
>
>
On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 08:18:38AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> I wonder if this is a good case for general-regs-only instead? At
> least no-sse cannot be functionally equivalent (since then we would
> not have needed general-regs-only ...).
I think general-regs-only is approx. equivalent to no