Hello again,
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024, Michael Matz wrote:
> > Can you please open a bugreport tracking this?
>
> PR116850.
Gah, too many tabs :) PR117064 I meant.
Ciao,
Michael.
Hi,
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024, Richard Biener wrote:
> > This also shows a general confusion in that function and the target hook
> > interface here:
> >
> > for (i = nregs - 1; i >= 0; --)
> >...
> >|| ! HARD_REGNO_RENAME_OK (reg + i, new_reg + i))
>
> Can you please open a bugreport tracki
> Am 10.10.2024 um 16:56 schrieb Michael Matz :
>
> (this came up for m68k vs. LRA, but is a generic problem)
>
> Regrename wants to use new registers for certain def-use chains.
> For validity of replacements it needs to check that the selected
> candidates are unused up to then. That's don
(this came up for m68k vs. LRA, but is a generic problem)
Regrename wants to use new registers for certain def-use chains.
For validity of replacements it needs to check that the selected
candidates are unused up to then. That's done in check_new_reg_p.
But if it so happens that the new register
