Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de> writes:

> On Fri, 21 Apr 2023, Sam James wrote:
>
>> r11-10018-g33914983cf3734c2f8079963ba49fcc117499ef3 fixed PR105312 and added
>> a test case for target/arm but the duplicate PR105573 has a test case for
>> target/sparc that was uncommitted until now.
>
> OK.  But see below for a question
>
>> 2023-04-21  Sam James   <sam@gentoo.org>
>>         PR tree-optimization/105312
>> 	PR target/105573
>> 	* gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/sparc/pr105573.c: New test.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
>> ---
>>  gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/sparc/pr105573.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>  create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/sparc/pr105573.c
>> 
>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/sparc/pr105573.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/sparc/pr105573.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 00000000000..9eba2e4beba
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/sparc/pr105573.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
>> +/* { dg-do compile } */
>> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -mvis3" } */
>> +
>> +int *UINT_sign_args, UINT_sign_steps;
>> +int *UINT_sign_ip1;
>> +__attribute__((optimize("O3"))) void UINT_sign() {
>
> is the optimize attribute necessary or does -O3 -mvis3 also reproduce
> the issue?

Good point - -O3 -mvis3 is enough, so I've resent w/ that & dropped
attribute.

I don't have push access so will need someone to push for me. Cheers.