https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109410
--- Comment #12 from Sam James <sjames at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Bisect gives a nonsensical result of r13-7156-g31eb8f18bbe646 with initial good
as r13-7155-g51856718a82ce60f067910d9037ca255645b37eb and bad as
releases/gcc-13.
I've checked out r13-7155-g51856718a82ce60f067910d9037ca255645b37eb and with
that commit, the test case still fails:
```
$ /tmp/bisect/bin/gcc -c -g -O1
/home/sam/git/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr109410.c
/home/sam/git/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr109410.c: In function ‘foo’:
/home/sam/git/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr109410.c:14:1: error: returns_twice
call is not first in basic block 2
14 | foo (int x, int y)
| ^~~
baz (x_7(D), y_8(D));
during GIMPLE pass: reassoc
/home/sam/git/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr109410.c:14:1: internal compiler
error: verify_flow_info failed
0x9c06ee verify_flow_info()
../.././gcc/cfghooks.cc:285
0xdb8077 execute_function_todo
../.././gcc/passes.cc:2110
0xdb85be execute_todo
../.././gcc/passes.cc:2152
Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source (by using
-freport-bug).
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.
```
with:
```
gcc (GCC) 13.0.1 20230412 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2023 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
```
so I don't think the original fix is complete?
