https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112304
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Trying 35 -> 16:
35: r95:SI=cc:CC!=0
REG_DEAD cc:CC
16: x0:SI=r95:SI+0x2a
REG_DEAD r95:SI
Failed to match this instruction:
(set (reg/i:SI 0 x0)
(plus:SI (ne:SI (reg:CC 66 cc)
(const_int 0 [0]))
(const_int 42 [0x2a])))
vs:
Trying 9 -> 14:
9: r97:SI=cc:CC!=0+r101:SI
REG_DEAD cc:CC
REG_DEAD r101:SI
14: x0:SI=r97:SI
REG_DEAD r97:SI
Successfully matched this instruction:
(set (reg/i:SI 0 x0)
(plus:SI (ne:SI (reg:CC 66 cc)
(const_int 0 [0]))
(reg:SI 101)))