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 CB27C3858D3C; Sat,  2 Mar 2024 11:06:38 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org CB27C3858D3C
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1709377598;
	bh=FKVNx2RI+nmQKuMuyKd6c9bjhw31oyhub4YECaNKHYM=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=IZGQ2rVaFIG6agj/rtMvP2REwlWwHp8onYkf4LsNura0kD+ceFuSqXj7Sf7WKchQJ
	 gOBYBf9qOUnfrp6sC3K1Ibtbtn9xAJ0MbpHZdMVPBD6pzC1FT/RhpXsZzllEGMrI1s
	 2cRhW6rt9kyu8uW12QwcxnpXHPCI+hCwXajDtr2E=
From: "xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/114206] recursive function call vs local
 variable addresses
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2024 11:06:38 +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: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: xry111 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: keywords cc
Message-ID: <bug-114206-4-bSamnrMNUL@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-114206-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-114206-4@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=3D114206

Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |wrong-code
                 CC|                            |xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I think both 0 and 1 are correct here.
>=20
> The question becomes does the address of b need to be different between
> different calls of f. I am not 100% convinced it needs to be different.

It looks like they needs to be different as they refer different objects and
the lifetime of both object has still not ended when comparing them.=