https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119731
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8) > Note I would not call this wrong code. It might be a verifier not liking the > produced code but the code is still correct in terms of the underlying ISA. And is correct according to the abstract machine; it just does not like it. Tracking memory is the problem here really.
