https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105753
--- Comment #13 from fiesh at zefix dot tv --- User99627, a few points: * My test case does require lto to be present. There's nothing to be gained from your statement that the bug doesn't require lto, there are test cases for either case. The reason I included it is that it may exhibit different behavior which may or may not stem from a separate bug, so it's worth checking if both test cases are resolved by a resolution to this issue. * While this appears to be of life or death importance to you, this may not be the same for everyone working on gcc, as reflected by its P3 importance. * Why do you use "dysfuctional software?" You should avoid doing that. * Attacking people usually does not improve their willingness to help you, especially when you don't pay them to help you. * While you failed to provide anything meaningful to the bug report (your code snippet is not self-contained valid C code; no one here will care about your attempts to get package maintainers of software distributions to do something stupid and restrict the versions of software they include based on your preferences), you are still welcome to fix the bug in gcc and provide a patch yourself.
