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 C6D463858C39; Tue,  7 Mar 2023 17:32:05 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C6D463858C39
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1678210325;
	bh=R/B4F4ZkRJcHCWq6aIwVyDffqAd7PRd7tmeklWlVcf0=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=oglOxeA79IhCRHzpk+73SZpIEB0mp1cu0UTqNp4SwR+C/5qGsUemm1Qkw/GhkH1wi
	 sB8iIhtERcg4zwAOozi6cijeUTKuTqZouUXE5XXqHowEgM7iNKPQ7ic4HYM/V1s6YC
	 TdBY71e9CaSZonQ/53CJgmMSsRrdNvkvtX3fR62U=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/109057] Does GCC interpret assembly when deciding to
 optimize away a variable?
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2023 17:32:05 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: inline-asm
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: INVALID
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-109057-4-3S2H6M0Gb0@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109057-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109057-4@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=3D109057

--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I certainly can't reproduce the LUT array not being emitted, tried GCC 11, =
12
and trunk,
C and C++ (all -O2).=