[RFC][PATCH LRA] WIP patch to fix one part of PR87507

[Jeff Law]

On 11/7/18 9:29 AM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 11/6/18 6:14 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> Or more general, that what is inside the subreg is a reg, because the
>> code does rely on that.
> 
> I think you mean to beef up the following from:
> 
> +			    if (HARD_REGISTER_P (nop_reg)
> +				&& REG_USERVAR_P (nop_reg)
> +				&& HARD_REGISTER_P (m_reg)
> +				&& REG_USERVAR_P (m_reg))
> +			      break;
> 
> to:
> 
> +                           if (REG_P (nop_reg)
> +                               && HARD_REGISTER_P (nop_reg)
> +                               && REG_USERVAR_P (nop_reg)
> +                               && REG_P (m_reg)
> +                               && HARD_REGISTER_P (m_reg)
> +                               && REG_USERVAR_P (m_reg))
> +                             break;
> 
> ...correct?  I can add that.  I don't think we need to modify
> the other patch hunks, since we know operand_reg[x] is already
> a reg.
I was referring to a more fundamental check in the IL checkers.  Segher
may have been referring to this specific code.  This is obviously safe
to do as well.

OK with this change.
jeff