[Issue 15629] [REG2.066.0] wrong code with '-O -inline' but correct with '-O'

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15629 --- Comment #9 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com --- Commits pushed to master at https://github.com/dlang/dmd https://github.com/dlang/dmd/commit/6b54b4bcf6dfaa343992f3524e1bf15ffca07da3 fix Issue 15629 - [REG2.066.0] wrong code with '-O -inline

[Issue 15629] [REG2.066.0] wrong code with '-O -inline' but correct with '-O'

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15629 github-bugzi...@puremagic.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Issue 15629] [REG2.066.0] wrong code with '-O -inline' but correct with '-O'

- [REG2.066.0] wrong code with '-O -inline' but correct with '-O' https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/b0d60736a583e22fc685cbc2b7f436e520073f91 Merge pull request #5666 from WalterBright/fix15629 fix Issue 15629 - [REG2.066.0] wrong code with '-O -inline' but correct with '-O' --

[Issue 15629] [REG2.066.0] wrong code with '-O -inline' but correct with '-O'

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15629 Walter Bright changed: What|Removed |Added Hardware|x86 |All

[Issue 15629] [REG2.066.0] wrong code with '-O -inline' but correct with '-O'

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15629 Walter Bright changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[REG2.066.0] wrong code |[REG2.066.0] wrong

[Issue 15629] [REG2.066.0] wrong code with "-O -inline" but correct with "-O"

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15629 Walter Bright changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 15629] [REG2.066.0] wrong code with "-O -inline" but correct with "-O"

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15629 Kenji Hara changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[REG] wrong code with "-O |[REG2.066.0] wrong code

[Issue 15629] [REG2.066.0] wrong code with "-O -inline" but correct with "-O"

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15629 --- Comment #5 from Kenji Hara --- (In reply to Kenji Hara from comment #4) > Sorry, the reduced code cannot reproduce exactly same regression with the > original. > I'll open one more issue for that. Ah, I got understanding.