https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105665
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3) > Started with r12-398-g5fbe6a8e73b52c6ebc28b9 because r12-397 didn't compile, > but yes, it is r12-397. And it is very similar to PR 100810 in the sense there is an not-executed use of an uninitialized variable too.