https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24786
Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last reconfirmed|2005-11-11 17:59:15 |2015-9-18 CC| |manu at gcc dot gnu.org Component|c++ |middle-end Version|4.1.0 |6.0 --- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> --- GCC generates code like this: const char *names[1]; const char *blah2() { char x = 7; if (first_time) names[0] = { &x }; return names[0]; } and we end up returning: # .MEM_1 = PHI <.MEM_4(2), .MEM_9(4), .MEM_6(3)> [test.c:5:17] # VUSE <.MEM_1> # PT = nonlocal escaped { D.2254 } (escaped) _10 = [test.c:5:17] _ZZ5blah2vE5namesD.2255[0]; # .MEM_11 = VDEF <.MEM_1> xD.2254 ={v} {CLOBBER}; [test.c:5:17] # VUSE <.MEM_11> return _10; ;; succ: EXIT [100.0%] While in the non-static case we propagate &x: ;; basic block 2, loop depth 0, count 0, freq 10000, maybe hot ;; prev block 0, next block 1, flags: (NEW, REACHABLE) ;; pred: ENTRY [100.0%] (FALLTHRU,EXECUTABLE) ;; starting at line 5 # .MEM_2 = VDEF <.MEM_1(D)> xD.2254 ={v} {CLOBBER}; [test.c:5:17] # VUSE <.MEM_2> return &xD.2254; ;; succ: EXIT [100.0%] This seems like a missed optimization. Somehow related to PR60517.