On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 12:27:12AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > Hello Peter, > > On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 14:49:06 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:38:13PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:30:08PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >>> When I used the argc variant, gcc-8 'works', but with s/argc/1/ it is > >>> still broken. > >> > >> As requested on IRC: > > > > What I asked was if you could get your GCC developer friends to have a > > look at this :-) > > JFYI, there is a bugzilla ticket regarding this behavior of GCC > at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61502, > which started on 13 June 2014 and the latest entry was on > 02 Feb 2019. And that bug was submitted by none other than Peter Sewell, thank you! This bug references https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88775, where someone appears to -want- this sort of optimization. :-/ Thanx, Paul
