https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109231
--- Comment #26 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> --- > --- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #24) >> > --- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- >> [...] >> So far, I've tried both variants and in each case, the comparison >> failure is gone. > > Given that the reproducers weren't reliable, I'm afraid it would take at least > 2-3 > runs to get something that says something. indeed, even though so far following the exact same procedure has always failed (or succeeded) in the same way. > Anyway, as I said for the second version, it would be nice to also try > subvariants: [...] > so see if the comparison failure is fixed by the result relayout, or by > argument > relayout or by the aggregate_value_p call actually having some side-effects > other than return value. I certainly plan to do so once the machine is idle again, probably tomorrow.
