https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=123381
--- Comment #4 from Robin Dapp <rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
What helps is slightly disparaging ('?') the reg-reg alternative but I don't
like that (I don't like any of these cost-altering switches). Another option
would be '^' that disparages slightly if the operand requires a reload. That
seems more appropriate and imitates what the cycle-danger check would do if we
didn't have the scratch.
Still very much feels like a hack, though.
