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 91CA13858C56; Thu, 13 Oct 2022 07:44:12 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 91CA13858C56
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1665647052;
	bh=1QkPbSwQ5DyF7w3EwbjJ0xq3UOwJ9oLdjvvrczpdvnE=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=d3Q8dFjhQWDNP7wzsgIUwfQPDI701/LhmTUa48GxcdXBNxStqm8a8TfR8E1QRfA6T
	 QTcXQe1Pya0iU1a19/YhGbeZ+JWqHpTOVD01nr+Ry2ssFj5hUPgYGxUqYDjFYhkSNC
	 YmuIKw114Fpe+uCNaL2N/GIOzO6HYG3+xf0/2/xE=
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <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: Thu, 13 Oct 2022 07:44:08 +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: rguenther at suse dot de
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-Bl1vpp08VY@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 #26 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Tue, 11 Oct 2022, jan.zizka at nokia dot com wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106922
>=20
> --- Comment #25 from Jan ?i?ka <jan.zizka at nokia dot com> ---
> I have backported all three patches but true that I didn't try to test wi=
thout
> VN enhancement. Would it help if I'd try that with our production code an=
d the
> reproducers? Or anything else I could try so that you'd know if the VM
> enhancement should be backported also?

They are clearly necessary to fix this bug.  What I'm unsure yet about
is the risk of generally enhancing VN for this diagnostic regression.
The enhancement itself is quite small and self-contained which is
why I'm still considering it ;)=