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 650883858C5F; Thu,  9 Feb 2023 21:19:33 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 650883858C5F
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1675977573;
	bh=wjLQSkQD4+bMZExGhIbn1xOKDZexRLtPglkUMDNKwWA=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=aHngrsXOipRvV3EGSUFTci0VbTYOlPUj9A0+IfZ4o+R5Vuwab/yhjua+9AIRWsrdo
	 3VsTj0l/rLACpdQSSWTBbeT/lPD2DoTNOkVOj5KRn+3fbaQmWnq8Pdc6E0vSDYE9kb
	 0OXHLQkPkUtYIaPKx/VympEbsgzwQjIUr0eHAw0Y=
From: "jankowski938 at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug ipa/108740] two identical functions but the code generated
 differs due to volatile argument
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2023 21:19:33 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: ipa
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jankowski938 at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
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: 
Message-ID: <bug-108740-4-pScoqtbBan@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108740-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108740-4@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=3D108740

--- Comment #5 from Piotr <jankowski938 at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to Piotr from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > > Hmm, ICF + re-inlining makes it ignore some of the pointless volatile=
 dance?
> >=20
> > why the code is different abstracting form the sense of the assignment?
>=20
> It is the volatileness of the argument. which by the way for C++20 is
> deprecated ...

It does not answer my question. Identical functions - different generated c=
ode.
Both have volatile arguments.=