https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=125838
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Alfie Richards from comment #13) > As that removes one of the variadic arguments did you also add an extra > argument to the call or lower the loop iterations to 24? > > Without those changes I get the negative number for the call to foo with and > without preserve_none, but with them they both are fine. > > (https://godbolt.org/z/4oc9h9qqK) doh :) too quick off the mark.
