From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 1D3B43858C53; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 14:15:45 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 1D3B43858C53
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1682518545;
	bh=qcgoGeK9KkGJxoc2YT5NwZVfZaGLi6zR9ZWQC16O8NQ=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Lj37Vp5jCmz4d2aJa8oYjGRYI2+8gKlhWjMzeUvJL2VRQ6xZKWc5OSs/pJIGpX+sG
	 1pVg+HOmFeH7YIjqQQJuhJpHztjCpOAboAnYiCtNRDkklQOSDNY+wd4dFNG7zNNvnb
	 53iWj1KhygOoGDl0yfsTH1Dn9Wm/kGZpZkYWmVmk=
From: "rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/109610] [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/dform-3.c
 fails after r14-172-g0368d169492017
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 14:15:44 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: testsuite-fail
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc
Message-ID: <bug-109610-4-Oq6jnYL9ro@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109610-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109610-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D109610

rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.or=
g> ---
Please don't do the peephole thing!  This seems like a
target-independent problem.

The costs for r117 look odd.  Why is the cost of GENERAL_REGS so high
when the use (before the introduction of insn 13) explicitly requires
GENERAL_REGS?

Given those costs, the behaviour after the patch looks correct
(on the basis of the information its working with, I mean,
even though it's not the desired effect).=