--- Comment #1 from sezeroz at gmail dot com 2009-10-19 08:59 ---
Created an attachment (id=18822)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18822action=view)
failing preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41751
--- Comment #2 from sezeroz at gmail dot com 2009-10-19 09:00 ---
Created an attachment (id=18823)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18823action=view)
good preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41751
--- Comment #3 from sezeroz at gmail dot com 2009-10-19 09:01 ---
Created an attachment (id=18824)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18824action=view)
failing asm output
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41751
--- Comment #4 from sezeroz at gmail dot com 2009-10-19 09:01 ---
Created an attachment (id=18825)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18825action=view)
good asm output
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41751
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-19 10:20 ---
You haven't provide a small self-contained executable testcase, so you need to
explain in detail what do you think is wrong on the generated assembly. I
don't see anything wrong on it, especially not in the diff
--- Comment #6 from sezeroz at gmail dot com 2009-10-19 11:11 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
function is left, so chances are you are refering to a variable later on even
after it went out of scope.
By a closer look, the function is called twice, first by its argument set to
true in
