https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=124439
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #11) > Yes, that is right. Although there is an exception like reverse memory > equivalence. > > So the original patch for PR124041 was wrong. It was my mistake that I > approved it. Note I don't think you approved it; it was approved by myself and Jeff. I only approved it thinking it looked correct approach and that it was a P1 regression at the time. Anyways Vlad, thanks for taking this over.
