From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 001733858415; Tue,  2 Nov 2021 18:29:36 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 001733858415
From: "hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/103050] [12 Regression] 520.omnetpp_r
 miscompiled after r12-4787-gb8ef019ab938471f
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2021 18:29:36 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-103050-4-uW6SiPmZ4e@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-103050-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-103050-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2021 18:29:37 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D103050

--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Martin,
do we know that the retslot change is the bad commit?  I proofread the patch
and did not see anything obviously wrong, however as seen in PR103040 the
previous behaviour that made return slots to escape could easily make some =
bad
code to not be misoptimized...=