https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94613
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Krebbel <krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3) > Why is it not correct to split the insn the way you describe? I see nothing > wrong with that - the use of r115 is still under r110 == 0. Is the issue > that r115 is re-used and r115 has more than a single use? Yes that's what it appeared to me in the original testcase but I have just noticed that auto-reduction broke it. In the reduced testcase r115 dies in INSN 36 so it isn't useful right now. I agree that the splitting is legal in that case.
