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 0E2E73858280; Sat,  5 Nov 2022 10:48:15 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0E2E73858280
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1667645295;
	bh=orz89jOwMGt2SH1wErU7aMj64plsV5s8W4VXWC9NK+U=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=xr52pHKqHhjjdY6RZ65Acfu8/BrghBkPfOjEvezSmK8LMy4GI7BftHq7rwNYx+eWl
	 qEZdZtzg1/Tr7MKFxbSB4Usxjtfu7OJ1jn1KNCZHzBUFJjqOnOzAht26m2H9m1vfTE
	 fq4hOFbHgZk3r37Kbc4VmR1m8hU746+vr6C3goHY=
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/107503] tail call missed with struct wrapper
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2022 10:48:14 +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: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
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: everconfirmed cf_reconfirmed_on bug_status
Message-ID: <bug-107503-4-vzw0STHyc9@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107503-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107503-4@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=3D107503

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2022-11-05
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW

--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Probably target dependent (requires single member aggregate to be returned =
with
the same ABI as the element type).=