https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99766
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #5) > I wonder if the CT_RELAXED_MEMORY cases should be following > on from CT_MEMORY rather than CT_SPECIAL_MEMORY. They're really > normal memory constraints that just happen to accept more than > a standard constraint. Yes, this is the right question. The patch I am working on treats CT_SPECIAL_MEMORY the same way as CT_MEMORY everywhere although it is enough to do this only in lra-constraints.c. After finishing testing I'll commit the patch. Unfortunately compiler farm arm64 machines are too slow (2 runs of gcc tests take almost 8 hours to run with -j8). I guess I'll fix it tomorrow.
