https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64833
--- Comment #20 from Kazumoto Kojima <kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #17) > Increasing insn lengths unnecessarily might result in some unlucky constant > pool placements and far branches and some code might get worse. On the > other hand, constant pool placement and far branch code generation is "a > matter of luck" anyway. The tests for the patch in c#16 has been done successfully on trunk. On second thought, you are right about "a matter of luck" which is proved by this corner case bug itself reproduced only with rather exotic options. Even the patch doesn't affect existing codes, a tiny change of options or environment variables will perturb the results. I'll apply the patch in c#16 on trunk and backport it to 4.9/5 if the usual tests are OK for those branches.
