https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114523
--- Comment #13 from Jose E. Marchesi <jemarch at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Thanks. The new title is way better. And thank you for the further analysis and the reproducer that also makes clang to generate the no-verifiable code! I wonder, is the issue also there when -mno-alu32 is used? In that case the generated code doesn't involve "subregs" (or 32-bit operations in assembly-like syntax): .file "foo.c" .text .align 3 .global foo .type foo, @function foo: call bar lddw %r1,baz mov %r0,%r0 and %r0,0xffffffff ldxw %r2,[%r1+0] add %r0,-1 neg %r2 xor %r0,%r2 rsh %r0,63 exit .size foo, .-foo .global baz .type baz, @object .lcomm baz,4,4 .ident "GCC: (GNU) 14.0.1 20240226 (experimental)" Cuper, is the verifier able to track proper values through the xor in this case?