[this time to the list] On 03/02/14 15:41, Yury Gribov wrote: > > Uggh - what a mess. Surely that zero_extend:SI (const_int 1) should be > > replaced by a move somewhere. > > Actually the whole (zero_extend:SI (subreg:HI ...)) part is replaced by > (const_int 1). It still ends up in constant pool though. > > -Y >
I find that hard to believe. The subreg being replaced is believable, but not the zero_extend. That would mean we had a simple movhi pattern, not a zero-extend pattern. R.
