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 2C3DD3858C3A; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 13:57:49 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2C3DD3858C3A
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1700747869;
	bh=g5WvcUdni/oZa9CJ31RsiSqetV3W91Y6gt3sQ3ioOBM=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=rdzxAqaTBXkTwZWsaDvJmMs1VoxpLpb912npzx8j30531FIGD3XrEMoCh7wQFNpRB
	 cYkSwpmETht99JF+tFm2H3u4VVK9c4f/TphJXxkFeycYNFGGfVOZ3IZmXQYJegmKxE
	 qZjSWmG4Q5NXLd7TG2xKTKBY+X/4ziDTHZ4tODA8=
From: "bugdal at aerifal dot cx" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/32667] block copy with exact overlap is expanded as
 memcpy
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 13:57:48 +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: 4.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: bugdal at aerifal dot cx
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
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: 
Message-ID: <bug-32667-4-DIAYzet9iu@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-32667-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-32667-4@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=3D32667

--- Comment #37 from Rich Felker <bugdal at aerifal dot cx> ---
Also: has anyone even looked at what happens if a C memcpy with proper use =
of
restrict gets LTO-inlined into a caller with GCC-generated memcpy calll whe=
re
src=3D=3Ddest? That sounds like a case likely to blow up...=