https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81448
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de> ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
> Guess we'll need the PR81364 fix for that.
Yes, although it would be good to require
a "{" only if cprefix##_ecb_encrypt(...) actually expands
to multiple stmts, if it expands to single stmt as here
BLOCK_CIPHER_ecb_loop() would be usable like for(;;)
