https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3) > ...I also wonder why SRA does not elide the aggregate copy. SRA has a special condition not to attempt to totally scalarize array of chars, so that it does not interfere with bigger types placement-new placed in those. It is true that artificially removing this condition would avoid the problem though. However, the IL after esra would look like the following: <bb 2> : SR.1_3 = 0; SR.2_8 = 0; SR.3_9 = 0; SR.4_10 = 0; SR.5_11 = 0; SR.6_12 = 0; SR.7_13 = 0; SR.8_14 = 0; SR.1_15 = 0; SR.2_16 = 0; SR.3_17 = 0; SR.4_18 = 0; SR.5_19 = 0; SR.6_20 = 0; SR.7_21 = 0; SR.8_22 = 0; D.10899.a._M_elems[0] = SR.1_15; D.10899.a._M_elems[1] = SR.2_16; D.10899.a._M_elems[2] = SR.3_17; D.10899.a._M_elems[3] = SR.4_18; D.10899.a._M_elems[4] = SR.5_19; D.10899.a._M_elems[5] = SR.6_20; D.10899.a._M_elems[6] = SR.7_21; D.10899.b = SR.8_22; return D.10899;
