https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64160
--- Comment #3 from Peter A. Bigot <pab at pabigot dot com> --- Comment on attachment 34232 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34232 Proposed patch I don't trust that the term nonsubreg is being used correctly in that predicate since the operand does have subregs (there's no documentation of what that predicate is intended to recognize). I'm also unconvinced that the test captures all the ways the operands might overlap: it seems one-sided, and ignores operand[2], though I'm not going to try to find a counter-example. I concede it fixes this specific example, but it doesn't leave me confident in the validity of the split.
