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 72AFA3858C20; Tue,  7 Mar 2023 17:31:05 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 72AFA3858C20
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1678210265;
	bh=NETAmJxe0i3Oki5IXb25UVUz0CE8J0crh9BDONF99vo=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=WnqD1KX4tNJvhwttas/in18/T88hjTx9ftm4om0FZs6rJ7nQy/05wTFXi93Pxg1P+
	 5j5GTRyphpSW1nMZB3AyeChdRX57/32mXs11jR0pJVS3zpfBN2moY79n/8cv8RUz7Z
	 5/PONy5/ZQFkJhUsMbpzzaXmonmRUBaGgiq9Wt9Q=
From: "hbucher at gmail dot com" <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 17:31:05 +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: hbucher at gmail dot com
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-QDihZL7LQN@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 #6 from Henry <hbucher at gmail dot com> ---
Still, why is it then if you change the type to uint32_t the behavior chang=
es?=20

And why the entire static array is cut out from the object file?=