https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112304
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Trying 35 -> 16: 35: r95:SI=cc:CC!=0 REG_DEAD cc:CC 16: x0:SI=r95:SI+0x2a REG_DEAD r95:SI Failed to match this instruction: (set (reg/i:SI 0 x0) (plus:SI (ne:SI (reg:CC 66 cc) (const_int 0 [0])) (const_int 42 [0x2a]))) vs: Trying 9 -> 14: 9: r97:SI=cc:CC!=0+r101:SI REG_DEAD cc:CC REG_DEAD r101:SI 14: x0:SI=r97:SI REG_DEAD r97:SI Successfully matched this instruction: (set (reg/i:SI 0 x0) (plus:SI (ne:SI (reg:CC 66 cc) (const_int 0 [0])) (reg:SI 101)))