https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=126815
--- Comment #4 from Drea Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #3) > yes, either leave the call, or I also have a patch in the queue which puts > the _9 = 0 before the call instead of after. This should be safe as there > are known to be no other uses of _9 Before wont work for calls that returns-twice. So it is best not to change it. Plus it saves slight memory and time .
