https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=124439
--- Comment #13 from Robin Dapp <rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #11) > (In reply to Robin Dapp from comment #4) > > > > So when deleting insn 11 we assume that all uses will be replaced. The way > > it's written, I suppose that's a basic assumption of lra. > > > > > Yes, that is right. Although there is an exception like reverse memory > equivalence. > > So the original patch for PR124041 was wrong. It was my mistake that I > approved it. > > I'll work on the original PR124041 to fix it and this PR. Thanks, so at least this assumption was correct :) Do you want me to revert the patch or are you just going the remove the bogus hunk along with your fix?
