[Bug tree-optimization/114206] recursive function call vs local variable addresses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114206 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug tree-optimization/114206] recursive function call vs local variable addresses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114206 Arsen Arsenović changed: What|Removed |Added CC||arsen at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/114206] recursive function call vs local variable addresses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114206 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/114206] recursive function call vs local variable addresses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114206 --- Comment #3 from congli --- How about this one: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/Wvhddb7nf? We ensured the two `b`s are different at each f() call.

[Bug tree-optimization/114206] recursive function call vs local variable addresses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114206 --- Comment #2 from congli --- That's correct. But I think it is not that reasonable if we treat the `b` like `b` is a `static const` variable rather than a `const` variable? Any documents telling this?