https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110173
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Hmm
> static void i() { *h = j(); }
> static int *j(unsigned o) {
>
> I suspect this is just might be another one of these cases where a variable
> is uninitialized gets a different value now.
Yes it is definitely related to that variable being uninitialized.
if you replace o with either 1 or 0, the call to foo is there even in GCC 13.
I think this can be marked as a non-regression.
