On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Ulrich Weigand <uweig...@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> reload generates:
>>
>> (insn 914 912 0 (set (reg:SI 0 ax)
>> (plus:SI (subreg:SI (reg/v/f:DI 182 [ b ]) 0)
>> (const_int 8 [0x8]))) 248 {*lea_1_x32}
>> (nil))
>>
>> from
>>
>> insn = emit_insn_if_valid_for_reload (gen_rtx_SET (VOIDmode, out, in));
>
> Interesting. The pseudo should have been replaced by the
> hard register (reg:DI 1) during the preceding call to
> op0 = find_replacement (&XEXP (in, 0));
> (since reload 0 should have pushed a replacement record.)
>
> Interestingly enough, in the final output that replacement *is*
> performed in the REG_EQUIV note:
>
> (insn 1023 1022 1024 34 (set (reg:SI 1 dx)
> (plus:SI (reg:SI 1 dx)
> (const_int 8 [0x8]))) spooles.c:291 248 {*lea_1_x32}
> (expr_list:REG_EQUIV (plus:SI (subreg:SI (reg:DI 1 dx) 0)
> (const_int 8 [0x8]))
> (nil)))
>
> which is why I hadn't expected this to be a problem here.
>
> Can you try to find out why the find_replacement doesn't work
> with your test case?
>
I will investigate. Could (reg:SI 1 dx) vs (subreg:SI (reg:DI 1 dx) 0)
a problem?
--
H.J.
