https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=124804
--- Comment #20 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #18) > So, I think there is some misunderstanding between the backend and RA on > endianity, what actually > (subreg:V16QI (reg:OO) 16) > and > (subreg:V16QI (reg:OO) 0) > mean for ppc64le and what it means on > (subreg:V16QI (mem:OO) 16) > and > (subreg:V16QI (mem:OO) 0) That sounds convincing! Is there any obvious wrong pattern? And/or can you try this on correct-endian as well, see if it works there?
