https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120929
--- Comment #21 from Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #20) > so for > > _1 = _2; > > we merge from _2. For > > _1 = *_2; > > we _also_ merge from _2. But those are semantically not the same! Yes, it only "makes sense" in the context of .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE as Qing originally conjectured, because .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE for _1 is stored in the context of &_1. > IMO this change was bogus and should be reverted. I'm testing a simple fix that constrains this to just .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE. Hopefully that should avoid the need to revert.
