On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 12:58 AM Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> gcc.target/aarch64/sve/acle/general/ldff1_8.c and
> gcc.target/aarch64/sve/ptest_1.c were failing because the
> aarch64 port was giving a zero (unknown) cost to instructions
> that compute two results in parallel. This was latent until
Kyrylo Tkachov writes:
> Hi Richard,
>
>> On 5 Feb 2025, at 09:57, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>
>> gcc.target/aarch64/sve/acle/general/ldff1_8.c and
>> gcc.target/aarch64/sve/ptest_1.c were failing because the
>> aarch64 port was giving a zero (unknown) cost to instructions
>> that compute two re
Hi Richard,
> On 5 Feb 2025, at 09:57, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
> gcc.target/aarch64/sve/acle/general/ldff1_8.c and
> gcc.target/aarch64/sve/ptest_1.c were failing because the
> aarch64 port was giving a zero (unknown) cost to instructions
> that compute two results in parallel. This was late
gcc.target/aarch64/sve/acle/general/ldff1_8.c and
gcc.target/aarch64/sve/ptest_1.c were failing because the
aarch64 port was giving a zero (unknown) cost to instructions
that compute two results in parallel. This was latent until
r15-1575-gea8061f46a30, which fixed rtl-ssa to treat zero costs
as u
