https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
--- Comment #26 from Bill Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> --- I believe it's also incorrect (the assumption on the value being in element 3 is a big-endian statement) but latent because this is really hard to match. I'll take an internal note to clean this up. I will also look at backporting these fixes to earlier releases to avoid future rediscovery.
