<html><head><base href="x-msg://132/"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Oct 12, 2011, at 11:09 PM, Jonas Paulsson wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Menlo; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div class="hmmessage" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Tahoma; "><div dir="ltr">Yes, I'm saying that the implicit-def operand that was added in this case ended up as #4, out of 6, when the operands list was reallocated in addOperand().<br><br>If addOperand was rewritten, I think it's best not to add my fix for ProcessUses(), as I wrote earlier.<br></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Alright. Thanks, Jonas.</div><div><br></div><div>If you see MI::addOperand() inserting implicit registers in the middle of the operand list on 3.0, let me know. It should never happen.</div><div><br></div><div>/jakob</div><div><br></div></div></body></html>