On 3/30/20 11:23 AM, Peter Bergner wrote: > I kind of agree with Richard above on making it more applicable/symmetric, > but why can't we just remove the HARD_REGISTER_NUM_P() tests altogether? > It's not like lower-subreg is extending hard register lifetime usage than > what is already there in the rtl. We're just decomposing what's already > there into smaller register sized chunks. Is there a problem with that > I'm not aware of?
...or maybe there was an issue when combine used to extend hard register lifetimes (which it doesn't anymore) and the test above was just a workaround? Peter
