https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97836
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97836
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.2|11.3
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97836
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.0|11.2
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97836
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
indeed, I think for gcc11 we want to make return mark value as used and for
next stage1 we want to design EAF flags bit more carefully...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97836
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 Regression] wrong code |wrong code at -O1 on
|at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97836
--- Comment #1 from Zhendong Su ---
Another related test that triggers the miscompilation at -Os, but not -O1:
[621] % gcctk -O1 small.c; ./a.out
[622] %
[622] % gcctk -Os small.c; ./a.out
Aborted
[623] %
[623] % cat small.c
int a;
int b(int
