https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112787
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to avieira from comment #10) > First of all, apologies for this! I don't know why I didn't test this on > x86_64 too, I usually do for such backports. > > Anyway I checked locally and backporting: > r14-2821-gd1c072a1c3411a6fe29900750b38210af8451eeb seems to be enough for > gcc-12, I'm testing it on gcc-13 and running full regression tests on both > x86_64 and aarch64 and will get back to you. > > @Andrew what made you think we also needed r14-2985-g04aa0edcace22a ? Not to > say we may not want to backport it, but just trying to figure out why it's > needed for this particular case. Because r14-2821 introduced PR 110838 (see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110838#c1) which was fixed by r14-2985 .
