https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103676
--- Comment #23 from Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #22) > If we consider such an inline asm invalid, we could error on it, ICE is not > the right thing. But what exactly should we error on? Alternative I think it is better to fix it in LRA than describing the semantics. I am starting to work on it and will look how the fix is going. If it is too complicated, we could try another solution (with describing the current semantics). In any case, I think it is not worth to fix the same existing problem in the old reload pass. > containing multiple register classes for multi-word operands is still > something used quite commonly in real-world, the problem is when the RA > assigns it a reg spanning across those. Or do most backends restrict > multi-word regs to start at a reg number divisible by the number of words > they need?
