On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 02:37:12PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > So maybe instead of the assert just do your new handling just for allows_reg
> > && allows_mem and leave the rest as before.
>
> But "=mi" would be a valid constraint (even if a literal immediate
> would be never OK there)?
I'd say so, the compiler can choose and while i won't ever work there, m
can. But then the FEs would try to make it addressable because it is
!allows_reg. Still, I think it is better to just guard and not assert.
> But yeah, && allows_reg would make it obviously safe. I'll adjust
> and re-fire the testing.
Thanks.
Jakub
