https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104050
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1) > Confirmed. Interesting that one needs -save-temps. Likely started with GCC > 11. I compared the simple from the FE with -save-temps (FAILS) and without (OK) the only difference between the two cases is that the temporary numbers are different by two (the numbers are +2 for the case without save temps). That is the same as the difference shown in the report - but not sure how to analyse that further right now ...
