Reload bug causing x86 problems

[Joern Rennecke]

> But what about the case where they are mixed (ie, one mandatory and
> one optional).  What is the result in this case?  Don't we need to
> set/clear reload_optional[i] to match the resulting reload in this
> case?

If any of the reloads is mandatory, the merged reload is mandatory.
This is already implemented in the current code:
      reload_optional[i] &= optional;

>   > Looking at remove_address_replacements, I wonder if we can also end up
>   > using a single register for an address that is used in another reload
>   > as part of a group?
> I can't see a reason why we would not run into this case.  Unless you're
> talking about reloads within a single insn.

Well, I'm talking about reloads for a single insn (which might spout several
reload insns).