https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83496
--- Comment #27 from Felix Fietkau <nbd at nbd dot name> --- On the original test case, it generates this code: 00400690 <mytest>: 400690: 8c830008 lw v1,8(a0) 400694: 24020001 li v0,1 400698: 10620011 beq v1,v0,4006e0 <mytest+0x50> 40069c: 00000000 nop 4006a0: 8c830000 lw v1,0(a0) 4006a4: 00000000 nop 4006a8: 28630002 slti v1,v1,2 4006ac: 1060000a beqz v1,4006d8 <mytest+0x48> 4006b0: 00000000 nop 4006b4: 8c82000c lw v0,12(a0) 4006b8: 00000000 nop 4006bc: 8c420000 lw v0,0(v0) 4006c0: 00000000 nop 4006c4: 00a2182b sltu v1,a1,v0 4006c8: 14600007 bnez v1,4006e8 <mytest+0x58> 4006cc: 00000000 nop 4006d0: 0045102b sltu v0,v0,a1 4006d4: 00021023 negu v0,v0 4006d8: 03e00008 jr ra 4006dc: 00000000 nop 4006e0: 03e00008 jr ra 4006e4: 2402ffff li v0,-1 4006e8: 03e00008 jr ra 4006ec: 24020001 li v0,1 It looks to me like it's generating lots of useless nop instructions after lw
