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 846613858D35; Fri,  8 Mar 2024 01:13:43 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 846613858D35
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1709860423;
	bh=rJ8HJmfuGXpCnPN2pSdwICPBbrtOlJP0wFzNJAdy7lw=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=gY3UAX1NqKH9OE9jOY1zx+v5uc3//YcbbLugQAFIkZhi1tAjpe4y1H5k8VvsjX13e
	 TiAaveVhGa3RtSqOHBVws0DEZlAP4qR55Yq4+w3ClQCjiNfkny41qJcEiks/ujYold
	 NPRo7EaX+iUERZ/z3m1tlz3Nq5Lsc9ahU3ZGOxp0=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/108355] [13/14 Regression] Dead Code
 Elimination Regression at -O2 since r13-2772-g9baee6181b4e42
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2024 01:13:43 +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: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization, testsuite-fail, xfail
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
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: 13.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-108355-4-iCegZ5ub8Y@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108355-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108355-4@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=3D108355

--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #10)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> > gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-fre-104.c has been XFAILed.
>=20
> Any obvious target-specific reason for this to XPASS on cris-elf, m68k-li=
nux
> and pru-elf?
>=20
> (per recent gcc-testresults posts)

Most likely because
int e[][1] =3D {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1};

Is done as a copy from a const static decl vs done via stores to e[i][0].

Maybe do s/5/2/ and change the number of elements down to 3 for the array a=
nd
you will hit the issue again on those targets.=