Hello! > From i386.md, alternative 1 of *fop_sf_comm_mixed is duplicated with > *fop_sf_comm_sse. Why do we define a _mixed pattern here? > > (define_insn "*fop_sf_comm_mixed" > [(set (match_operand:SF 0 "register_operand" "=f,x") > (match_operator:SF 3 "binary_fp_operator"
Register allocator is free to choose either x87 or SSE register in _mixed case, where only SSE reg alternative is available in _sse pattern. Uros.
