http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59584
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > Are you sure it didn't fail before r205026 as well, because what my patch > did was essentially restore the old behavior unless strictly necessary (then > it would keep the r205026+ behavior). Sounds like you have a good grip on the circumstances. :) There was no reason to check for earlier failure ranges, but it certainly failed before and with r205023, started passing with r205046 up until as noted. So, I guess this will be a low-priority PR, particularly as it uses an odd builtin-construct very unlikely to be seen in user code - not to mention it will also be hidden behind a target-specific fix.
