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 BC1A93858D33; Thu, 16 Feb 2023 18:00:41 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BC1A93858D33
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1676570441;
	bh=6sxGAwaOCc5UqK4mUfCXhK+DTqj2OgZptzi0w8Xy2YM=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=fYWH7t0FU05v2HHDEcAXyhdA/PH7PYYaAfIEptOCg2P+WhVxZjQkJKny/YKw9t8OS
	 YBEynttIVX8t8GmCr8qp4vxnVsu5DfQNVDKPjvc8EB7YwkkNkxM/qZEDcLKVXnar9b
	 bG2LsAurGJQwabdyX3rU1cXMtl/scrA6rVSyRZxc=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/108826] Inefficient address generation on
 POWER and RISC-V
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 18:00:41 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
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-108826-4-pQsa9nxWBy@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108826-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108826-4@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=3D108826

--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Note I need to better understand why the C++ front-end thinks this would =
be
> invalid ...

Oh because the struct name is unnamed :).=