https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87359
--- Comment #36 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> --- > The test succeeds with r264348+patch of r264485, but not with r264349+patch. I make a mistake in my bissection: r264349+patch is OK as well as r264357+patch, but not r264358+patch.