------- Additional Comments From uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-08 15:48 ------- (In reply to comment #51) > I don't know whether I just forgot about it, or figured we'd be better off > leaving it as it was for a bit longer, so as to expose more cases we could > handle especially.
Well, in my case the problem is that the pattern has two memory operands whose addresses need to agree, and loop is trying to change one of them --> the insn predicate rejects. I don't see how this can be fixed easily, and don't think much effort should be put into the old loop code -- but we need a safe fall-back to avoid the ICE. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20126
