[Bug target/95218] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/fma_run_double_1.c execution test since r11-455-g94f687bd9ae37ece

[ubizjak at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95218

Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |law at gcc dot gnu.org,
                   |                            |rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #7)
> Ooh, yes :(
> 
> '(use X)'
>      Represents the use of the value of X.  It indicates that the value
>      in X at this point in the program is needed, even though it may not
>      be apparent why this is so.  Therefore, the compiler will not
>      attempt to delete previous instructions whose only effect is to
>      store a value in X.  X must be a 'reg' expression.
> 
> Partial revert is in works.

Actually, no. The above applies to single (use ...) RTX, not (use ...) as part
of a parallel. There are plenty of uses of memory_operands in i386.md:

(define_insn "fix_truncdi_i387"
  [(set (match_operand:DI 0 "nonimmediate_operand" "=m")
        (fix:DI (match_operand 1 "register_operand" "f")))
   (use (match_operand:HI 2 "memory_operand" "m"))
   (use (match_operand:HI 3 "memory_operand" "m"))
   (clobber (match_scratch:XF 4 "=&f"))]

Let's ask experts.