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 22ECD3858022; Tue,  4 Jul 2023 10:06:41 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 22ECD3858022
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1688465201;
	bh=zIcMOq0qhk7RI19tqYqFxA+534wleiKDuIP23qjfjS0=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=w3SJb2N2ldXQfbJonHR8/7xoRm5i4BpuXfAVQ/EDtBH9zt+rL/uv+wxZ+SQNounET
	 vNAHIcYbFw2/mYE2/1yW2xmOluf5a/GTLkcloL9ngFO45fasRQBaRujEgo4xbWzEWa
	 HW7e/G7zOKBb82ni2tuPcz6ng9ZhtQWIqaFGfNuE=
From: "zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/110228] [13/14 Regression] llvm-16 miscompiled due
 to an maybe uninitialized variable
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2023 10:06:39 +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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch
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: 13.2
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-110228-4-C0ArOIJlyW@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-110228-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-110228-4@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=3D110228

--- Comment #30 from Zhendong Su <zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #29)
> I can't reproduce the original failure on trunk or with GCC 13.1, but the
> testcase from comment#16 is now fixed.  I also cannot reproduce the testc=
ase
> from comment#21 before the fix.
>=20
> Can people double-check this is now fixed, maybe also on the branch when =
this
> fix is cherry-picked?
>=20
> Thanks.

I can still reproduce the test from comment#21 as well as PR 110491 and PR
110509.

PR 110376 doesn't reproduce for me anymore.=