https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107197
--- Comment #9 from Eugene Rozenfeld ---
107193 was fixed by
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:80f414e6d73f9f1683f93d83ce63a6a482e54bee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107197
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #7)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> > Probably the same as PR107193
>
> I guess so, see comment3 in PR107193.
It looks like exact below warns for.
==107
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107197
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107197
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
Git hash 09df0d8b14dda66c seems good. Trying fce601fd07fd04f5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107197
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||erozen at microsoft dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107197
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
Git hash e2a228438919d846 seems good. Trying 09df0d8b14dda66c.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107197
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
81 revisions to bisect. Trying e2a228438919d846.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107197
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Build with -O2 demonstrates the same valgrind problem, so someone this week,
between the two git hashes mentioned, has broken the -O2 build.
I haven't got the compute power here to do the bisect. Advice s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107197
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
I can tell you that last weekend's valgrind build with -O2 went fine.
That was from git hash ca01d2526917ec6e.
This weekend's valgrind build, with -O3 enabled, is from git hash
6ffbf87ca66f4ed9cd79cff675f
