https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=122717
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #3) > Understood. I don't really care about the xstormy port. Mostly want to > raise awareness that perhaps the tree-cfgcleanup code had unintended > fallout. If there's any reasonable belief it's xstormy backend, then > definitely put on the backburner. Really I had hoped it was hanging inside the ranger while expanding (rather than LRA) so we would have an easier testcase for PR 122686 but no luck there.
