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 2B45E385AE6D; Fri, 24 Jun 2022 10:21:43 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2B45E385AE6D
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/106064] Wrong code comparing two global
 zero-sized arrays
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 10:21:42 +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: pinskia 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-106064-4-CYu0ortM20@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106064-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106064-4@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: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 10:21:43 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106064

--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #2)
> > Seems target-dependent. I can't reproduce on x86_64-linux-gnu or
> > sparc64-linux-gnu: both compile f() to return 1 and g() to perform a ru=
ntime
> > computation. But ppc64-linux-gnu and armv7l-linux-gnueabi behave as your
> > aarch64 example: f() returns 1 and g() returns 0 (unconditionally, no
> > runtime computations).
>=20
> Most likely section anchors is the cause of the difference between the
> targets.
> The ones which implement section anchors return different values between =
the
> functions. Is suspect MIPS has similar behavior too.

It is also most likely why aarch64 changed between 8 and 9 too.=