From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id A6305385840F; Fri,  3 Mar 2023 19:29:22 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A6305385840F
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1677871762;
	bh=MkCaJgdQ8/yGQiYYbMzwWMlL+COIcCl1LziooiMJrF0=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=L4fpS4GiVOgNasARcX3zPej37k9+0M02iLpkTCE4fUMrTcBi5ZWQ8fbkqIUqAgWdd
	 lKehzKA/h0iVJnoB7y/PFKk7hmvaqGuMbmu1bB2Ipg3VQ9eiTVm/eE867NG/NtPUed
	 ECw9dwW4N0sqJLVyGaWDIjlH2ZQ7a5AXyL2BaUIk=
From: "iains at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/101118] coroutines: unexpected ODR warning for coroutine
 frame type in LTO builds
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2023 19:29:22 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: C++-coroutines, diagnostic, lto
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: iains at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-101118-4-qnmTZfPzn0@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-101118-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-101118-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D101118

--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #10)
> Hmm... maybe I am being too hasty here.
>=20
> If the coroutine has a definition in a header, then the coroutine frame t=
ype
> _should_ be the same for each instance of it.  So maybe this is actually
> reporting a genuine ODR violation?

ah (I still misread) ... so the reported error is that the frame type *is* =
the
same (which is correct) but the field names differ (which is probably a
consequence of using static counters to produce them).  So we need a stable=
 way
to generate the field names.=