------- Comment #37 from sandra at codesourcery dot com 2010-07-21 04:21 ------- It seems like the change was introduced by my patch for PR42505 in r161844. But, it is correctly choosing the lower-cost candidate set -- the problem is in the cost model, which was unchanged from r161843. Take a look at the "Use-candidate costs" section of the dump. Those costs with negative values (like -7) look very suspicious to me.
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29256
