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 39A063858D38; Mon, 19 Sep 2022 15:03:34 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 39A063858D38
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1663599814;
	bh=zMtZVPERSMdzJ6vQmUDwU4otMJhd76JyslJhIJfiTRc=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Rt1jka2SvSIgvf36CxbT0s2UFc7wsZ2TMQ4enXXihoiYIGnMYdZjPs7Pz1WHK7o0K
	 FpvK0RwtpS0YHD8VC9XAbsDF/CTgh97/6fxRJym78tA2MvKdwX+0uBMkQ09ksUucTq
	 zeazf+RCW0kElbq7Wm6u8WLycsR7gcZcMqXCFw28=
From: "jan.zizka at nokia dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/106922] [12 Regression] Bogus uninitialized
 warning on boost::optional<<std::vector<std::string>>>, missed FRE
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2022 15:03:34 +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: 12.2.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic, missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jan.zizka at nokia dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-106922-4-3labPocUf4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106922-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106922-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106922

--- Comment #12 from Jan =C5=BDi=C5=BEka <jan.zizka at nokia dot com> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> So there's a similar missed optimization but it's not caused by the bisec=
ted
> revision.=20=20

Ah I see. I didn't try to bisect this again. I can do that if that would he=
lp
anything, let me know if I should try. I have bisect script so I can run it
overnight ...

Also is it better then to open new BZ for this case then?

> I have
> a patch that fixes the above but that miscompiles genrecog.cc
> merge_into_decision (but no testcase in the testsuite ...).

I could at least try to test the patch with our production code. Unfortunat=
ely
can't help with genrecog.cc ..=