https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113510
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5) > Yes the peephole2 in thumb1.md looks wrong: > ``` > ;; Reloading and elimination of the frame pointer can > ;; sometimes cause this optimization to be missed. > (define_peephole2 > [(set (match_operand:SI 0 "arm_general_register_operand" "") > (match_operand:SI 1 "const_int_operand" "")) > (set (match_dup 0) > (plus:SI (match_dup 0) (reg:SI SP_REGNUM)))] > "TARGET_THUMB1 > && UINTVAL (operands[1]) < 1024 > && (UINTVAL (operands[1]) & 3) == 0" > [(set (match_dup 0) (plus:SI (reg:SI SP_REGNUM) (match_dup 1)))] > "" > ) > ``` > > Confirmed. Since this is a peephole and we're dealing with hard regs, we can just use "low_register_operand" as the predicate for operand 0.
