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 071F03858C2D; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 13:13:34 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 071F03858C2D
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1665494015;
	bh=kA4HlnkrHRVl2FS8UqnOte+kVouEXT4C9KJQ5nMYTuc=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=tJvERWvxi4HqsuNQL9aP4FhnkdxasJIbeBS4LMKUc6+qcB7HefucN6Mz7ODzn35/9
	 YzzaxCOnYm6jIZZNvyraUsLeAeo0r4ur6s0NEiw1BVL9vFHNSYQQtao4gmN+xuJkQ6
	 NT6V2gHzX4BPhY/29JJtAwWz9vMEPJMSt42d2mw8=
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: Tue, 11 Oct 2022 13:13:34 +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-Bd6paBX78e@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 #25 from Jan =C5=BDi=C5=BEka <jan.zizka at nokia dot com> ---
I have backported all three patches but true that I didn't try to test with=
out
VN enhancement. Would it help if I'd try that with our production code and =
the
reproducers? Or anything else I could try so that you'd know if the VM
enhancement should be backported also?=