http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50788
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2011-10-23 10:59:21 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > but the expanders have match_dup. Uros, would you mind taking it over? TIA. It is OK for expanders to have match_dup. We just don't want to have post-reload passes to trip on double-output to the same register. BTW: There is another spot with similar problem: @@ -8011,7 +8011,8 @@ [(set (mem:V16QI (match_operand:P 0 "register_operand" "D")) (unspec:V16QI [(match_operand:V16QI 1 "register_operand" "x") (match_operand:V16QI 2 "register_operand" "x") - (mem:V16QI (match_dup 0))] + (mem:V16QI + (match_operand:P 3 "register_operand" "0"))] UNSPEC_MASKMOV))] "TARGET_SSE2" "%vmaskmovdqu\t{%2, %1|%1, %2}" While compilation won't break here, IMO we should tell the reload that we have matching constraint. BTW: This fun is all due to conditional maskmov store. We can't just set the memory, since preceding stores to the same location will be simply deleted.