On 11/6/18 6:14 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Or more general, that what is inside the subreg is a reg, because the > code does rely on that.
I think you mean to beef up the following from: + if (HARD_REGISTER_P (nop_reg) + && REG_USERVAR_P (nop_reg) + && HARD_REGISTER_P (m_reg) + && REG_USERVAR_P (m_reg)) + break; to: + if (REG_P (nop_reg) + && HARD_REGISTER_P (nop_reg) + && REG_USERVAR_P (nop_reg) + && REG_P (m_reg) + && HARD_REGISTER_P (m_reg) + && REG_USERVAR_P (m_reg)) + break; ...correct? I can add that. I don't think we need to modify the other patch hunks, since we know operand_reg[x] is already a reg. Peter
