https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92140
--- Comment #16 from Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13) > Created attachment 47067 [details] > gcc10-pr92140.patch > > So what about this version then? I've changed back a couple of > <general_operand> to nonimmediate_operand and removed corresponding > force_reg, because it would be in spots where the there is already one > possible immediate which would be in operands[2] rather than operands[1], > changed the eq/ne_0_operator to the define_special_predicate you've > suggested and added testcase coverage. LGTM.
