https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110748
--- Comment #7 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to palmer from comment #6) > (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #5) > > I'd bet it's const_0_operand not allowing CONST_DOUBLE. > > > > The question is what unintended side effects we'd have if we allowed > > CONST_DOUBLE 0.0 in const_0_operand. > > We don't have a architectural 0 register, so we'd probably end up needing to > refactor some stuff. It's probably smoother to add some sort of > "reg_or_0_or_0f_operand" type predicate, and then convert the floating-point > stuff that takes X registers over to that (at least stores and > integer->float conversions, but maybe some comparisons too?). Should have said "We don't have a architectural 0 floating-point register", we have x0 (which is why that reg_or_0 stuff shows up).
