One more path to fix PR70478

[Vladimir Makarov]

On 04/11/2017 03:30 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Hi Vladimir,
>
> On 10 April 2017 at 17:05, Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com> wrote:
>>    This is the second try to fix
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70478
>>
>>    The first try patch triggered a latent bug and broke one Fortran testcase
>> on x86-64.
>>
>>    The patch was successfully bootstrapped on x86-64 and tested on x86-64,
>> ppc64, and aarch64.
>>
>>    Committed as rev. 246808.
>>
>>
> This patch causes regression on arm*hf configurations:
>    Executed from: gcc.target/arm/arm.exp
>      gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-1.c scan-assembler-times ldrh\\tr[0-9]+ 2
>      gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-1.c scan-assembler-times strh\\tr[0-9]+ 2
>      gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-1.c scan-assembler-times
> vld1\\.16\\t{d[0-9]+\\[[0-9]+\\]}, \\[r[0-9]+\\] 2
>      gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-1.c scan-assembler-times
> vmov\\.f16\\tr[0-9]+, s[0-9]+ 4
>      gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-1.c scan-assembler-times
> vmov\\.f16\\ts[0-9]+, r[0-9]+ 4
>      gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-1.c scan-assembler-times
> vst1\\.16\\t{d[0-9]+\\[[0-9]+\\]}, \\[r[0-9]+\\] 2
>
>
I've committed a patch which is supposed to fix the regression.