http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53226
--- Comment #13 from Michael Matz <matz at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-08 13:19:42 UTC --- (In reply to comment #10) > The other way is to try to get away without immediately removing propagated > source stmts - the obvious downside is that transforms relying on > single-use definitions will be confused by those dead uses Just for completeness: If we would simply NOP out the to-be-removed statements that would be taken care of. Additionally iterator copies to those non-removed stmts wouldn't break.
