On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 05:44:47PM -0700, James E Wilson wrote:
> Recursively calling instantiate_virtual_regs_in_insn does not look
> right.
Indeed it is not.
I'd like to see the define_insn for {addhi3}. I'm a bit confused as
to how I could have missed iterating over what appears like it ought
to be match_operand 0.
> I know of one PR that has since been filed for a problem with the new
> virtual register instantiation code. That is PR 21328.
Actually, 21318, but yes this is unrelated. The symptom in that case
is an ICE in simplify_subreg.
r~
