https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117123
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Wed, 16 Oct 2024, pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117123 > > --- Comment #7 from Filip Kastl <pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > It is not in a loop. I guess I'll double-check that there aren't any > differences which I didn't notice. There is one here: > > 57 # spud$size_22 = PHI <10(4), a_24(D)(2), a_24(D)(3)> > 44 # spud$size_55 = PHI <a_31(D)(2), a_31(D)(4), 10(5)> > > The constant 10 is on a different position in the PHI function. However, I > think that this also shouldn't have any effect on PRE. It shouldn't, but the order of edges has an influence on the order of sets processed in compute_antic (but the result should be independent on order ... in theory). You can compare -fdump-tree-pre-details, specifically the ANTIC_IN sets.
