https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61203
--- Comment #3 from Michael Matz <matz at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > same spot. No idea what to do against this though, treating a CLOBBER as a > barrier for propagation of addresses to other local variables would penalize > stuff way too much. Conceptually this should be the right thing. The clobber says the object doesn't exist anymore, so also forming its address should be invalid/implementation defined. Either the clobber should move or it should be a barrier also for addresses of the clobbered object. I'm not sure if that really would penalize much. > And giving up on stack slot sharing because of such an > artificial testcase is not useful either. Perhaps expansion could detect the situation (address of clobbered object leaked after the clobber) and disable sharing just for such problematic objects.
