From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com>
To: john@feith.com (John Wehle)
Cc: egcs@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: Possible CSE quirk involving SUBREG on the i386 
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 14:08:00 -0000
Message-id: <18459.899240686@hurl.cygnus.com>
References: <199806302051.QAA29271@jwlab.FEITH.COM>
X-SW-Source: 1998-06/msg01132.html

  > It appears that CSE changed (reg/v:HI 23) in insn 16 to
  > (subreg:HI (reg:SI 22) 0) yet it did not perform this
  > same substitution in insn 18.  I would have expected
  > the same substitution in both places.
In that case, you might see if it was rejected because the perceived
cost wasn't worth the benefit.  It may also be the case that the
zero_extendhisi pattern won't accept a subreg.  I haven't looked.

jeff