https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90574
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> Note these issues also appear as coverage errors:
>
> -: 0:Source:t.c
> -: 0:Graph:t.gcno
> -: 0:Data:t.gcda
> -: 0:Runs:1
> -: 0:Programs:1
> 1: 1:int main(int argc, char **argv)
> -: 2:{
> -: 3: if (argc == 0)
> -: 4: {
> -: 5: int *ptr;
> 1: 6:label:
> -: 7: {
> -: 8: }
> -: 9: }
> 1: 10: if (argc == 1)
> -: 11: {
> 1: 12: __builtin_printf("hello\n");
> -: 13: }
> 1: 14: return 0;
> -: 15:}
If you take a look at following list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=SUSPENDED&bug_status=WAITING&bug_status=REOPENED&cf_known_to_fail_type=allwords&cf_known_to_work_type=allwords&email1=yangyibiao%40nju.edu.cn&emailreporter1=1&emailtype1=substring&list_id=239143&query_format=advanced
You'll find bazillion of similar test-cases where we optimize CFG before
gimplification happens.
