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 D84DA3858D32; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 06:58:43 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D84DA3858D32
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1696921123;
	bh=G/mvU3UhTqdz28wQ4UC35xLBqqnhG5tXQySACuL1gX0=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=a7CxZ+jzZOVo8f64DI7lU2M8O2W+7NshaIotLLckncm/RWAZTZGIZkAdclJycCDCc
	 1mRqFeu2mjRuhUMjzOscisLaLiadrYjmqyB0ObHbHEVjHHXHbBvv6HjKQs8imSJwj1
	 02MLkAPB8K2os1AtuIyo0Shfr1JH12wWZtSKK4H4=
From: "sjames at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/111715] Missed optimization in FRE because of
 weak TBAA
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 06:58:43 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: alias, diagnostic, missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-111715-4-mspWKBtGnn@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-111715-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-111715-4@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=3D111715

--- Comment #8 from Sam James <sjames at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> (In reply to Sam James from comment #6)
> > I started hitting the original warning Jakub hit with 13.2.1 20231007 b=
ut
> > I've not tried to figure out which backported change caused it to appea=
r.
>=20
> With what configuration?

I was a bit wrong - not quite the same warning, filed PR111752 for it.=