https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78580
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > > So, is the bug that i?86 needs Q_REGS to be an allocno class always (shall > ix86_additional_allocno_class_p return true also for Q_REGS? Just for -m32 > or always?), or is the bug that if Q_REGS is not an allocno class then there > shouldn't be allocno with that class? I believe there should be no allocno having reg class which is not an allocno class. I've been working on the issue for some time but still did not find the best way and place (there are a few of them) to fix it especially when the target code can change allocno class using a hook. I am planning to have a patch on the next week.
