I think this is a regression from a previous version of 4.0.0
void *ptr1, *ptr2;
bi.ptr1 = 0;
bi.word = 0;
bi.word_bit = 0;
bitmap_iterator bi1 = bi;
if (bi1.ptr1 != 0)
SRA shouldn't be responsible for this. There should be a generalized
block copy propagator. Which would help with copies far larger than
you'd ever expect SRA to handle as well.
This is the same issue as PR 14295 so closing as a dup.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 14295 ***
Reopening to ...
To mark as a dup of bug 36327.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 36327 ***