https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102395
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > Actually it might be easier to change line 1291: > gcc_assert (sclass < LIM_REG_CLASSES); > > to be: > gcc_assert (sclass < LIM_REG_CLASSES && sclass >= NO_REGS); > > I don't see how -1 is coming into play ... So the requirement is NO_REGS first is documented in tm.texi so gcc_assert (sclass < LIM_REG_CLASSES && sclass >= NO_REGS);