------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-11 11:00 ------- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #1) > > > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 19699 *** > > Shouldn't it be marked as a duplicate of 19583 instead, and 19583 be reopened? No because this and PR 19699 have the same issue, there is extra dead code either produced by the compiler or the user.
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21483
