------- Comment #7 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-11 20:47 ------- (In reply to comment #5) > It's a latent bug somewhere, possibly in delayed branch scheduling?
With vs. without -fno-delayed-branch at 147274 seems to justify this blame. Ugh. I'll see if I can nail it. But, for the record, having said that, still your exposure, your bug. ;) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40086
