https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111231
--- Comment #26 from Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #25)
> I think it's more interesting why
>
> * 119: [r216:SI (2 MEM[(struct Vec128<short int, 8> *)_179]+0 S4 A64)] =
> {r0:SI..r3:SI}
>
> isn't considered as dependence? Why does the earlier insn even come into
> play? What's the breaking transform? I guess insn 119 and 120 are
> exchanged?
Because 119 was deleted by postreload. Doh! I should have spotted that.
