https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102178
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #3) > ...I'll have a very brief look at what is actually happening just so that I > have more reasons to believe this is not a code placement issue again. The hot function is at the same address when compiled by both revisions and the newer version looks sufficiently different. I even tried sprinkling it with nops and it did not help. I am no saying we are not bumping against some michro-architectural peculiarity but it does not seem to be a code placement issue.
