https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #17 from Wilco <wilco at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #14) > I've checked cvtf_1.c generated code and I don't see additional fmov > anymore. I guess it was fixed by an ira-costs.c change (a special > consideration of moves containing hard regs). I think this PR is resolved > (although the change resulted in a new PR 88560 but it is a different story). Some failures disappeared, however various failures still exist. It appears the ones reported above are not all directly related to the move change, but another change around the same time. For example all of these are due to combine no longer creating bfi or tst instructions in trivial cases: FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/combine_bfi_1.c scan-assembler-times \\tbfi\\t 5 FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler bfi\tx[0-9]+, x[0-9]+, 0, 8 FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler bfi\tx[0-9]+, x[0-9]+, 16, 5 FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler movk\tx[0-9]+, 0x1d6b, lsl 32 FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_2.c scan-assembler bfi\tx[0-9]+, x[0-9]+, 43, 5 FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_2.c scan-assembler bfi\tx[0-9]+, x[0-9]+, 56, 8 FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_2.c scan-assembler movk\tx[0-9]+, 0x1d6b, lsl 16 FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/lsl_asr_sbfiz.c scan-assembler sbfiz\tw FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/tst_5.c scan-assembler tst\t(x|w)[0-9]+,[ \t]*255 FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/tst_5.c scan-assembler tst\t(x|w)[0-9]+,[ \t]*65535 FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/tst_6.c scan-assembler tst\t(x|w)[0-9]+,[ \t]*65535 > If we want to improve the generated code size, it would be better to find > a small testcase from SPEC2006 showing what is wrong. I understand it is a > hard work but otherwise we could only speculate what is going wrongly. I > don't think that reverting the combiner change would be a solution. Yes it's hard to get good reproducible examples, especially from large functions. It's easier to first sort out the known test failures.
