https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107411
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Thu, 16 Feb 2023, qing.zhao at oracle dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107411 > > --- Comment #8 from Qing Zhao <qing.zhao at oracle dot com> --- > > On Feb 16, 2023, at 2:35 AM, rguenther at suse dot de > > <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107411 > > > > --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- > > On Wed, 15 Feb 2023, qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > > > > Hmm, I don't think so. So this is indeed expected behavior since the > > frontend IL doesn't have variable definitions with initializers but > > instead just (immediately following) assignments. > > Then, if that’s the case, it also is correct to add the .DEFERRED_INIT to them > during gimplification? Yes.
