https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=126815
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> --- (In reply to Drea Pinski from comment #4) > (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #3) > > yes, either leave the call, or I also have a patch in the queue which puts > > the _9 = 0 before the call instead of after. This should be safe as there > > are known to be no other uses of _9 > > Before wont work for calls that returns-twice. So it is best not to change > it. Plus it saves slight memory and time . eh? why wouldn't that work? There are zero uses of _9, so it doesn't matter if its the return value or not. Regardless, your patch is fine.
