https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
--- Comment #21 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> --- One argument against the sequence point is that we don't have one for ?: . If we add one for ?: several testcases regress, so we have to make sure to only do the save_expr/compound_expr thing if there are side effects, or port some more fold-const optimizations to gimple (and update the testcases to check for the optimization in a later dump).
