https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120941
--- Comment #31 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- - basic block if it is in a recursive call. */ - || !recursive_call_p) + basic block if it is in a recursive call or in + a loop. */ + || (!recursive_call_p + && (load->bb->loop_father->latch + == EXIT_BLOCK_PTR_FOR_FN (cfun)) + && (bb->loop_father->latch + == EXIT_BLOCK_PTR_FOR_FN (cfun)))) "in a loop" is better tested as loop_outer (load->bb->loop_father) != NULL, but your test should work, too. I think we can possibly allow the case of load->bb->loop_father == bb->loop_father, but that would be more forgiving than your fix. I wonder if we can simply add a debug counter to the above place and see to identify the (single?) problematic hoisting?
