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 89FA13858D39; Mon, 15 Nov 2021 16:12:44 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 89FA13858D39
From: "msebor at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/103223] [12 regression] Access attribute
 dropped when ipa-sra is applied
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2021 16:12:44 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-103223-4-L0EpygNSJe@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-103223-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-103223-4@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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2021 16:12:44 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D103223

--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #0)
...
> > Martin, I wonder if if you would be OK with simply dropping the access =
when
> > function signature changes (which I can prepare patch for) or do you wa=
nt to
> > dive into updating it?
>=20
> I would be OK with it but I don't think people who invested the energy
> into these new security warnings would.

I replied earlier on gcc-patches: I've always intended the access attribute=
 to
eventually benefit optimization so please feel free (and encouraged :) to u=
se
it
for that purpose.  The idea behind it was not just to catch bugs but also to
enable optimizations based on the expectation that those bugs will have been
fixed.  (This has to be done carefully since the attribute is also implicit=
ly
added in contexts where relying on it wouldn't correct for optimization; the
attirbute API makes it possible to distinguish these cases.)

By dropping the attribute in IPA passes we would not only give up on detect=
ing
the bugs the IPA transformations expose but also on the optimization
opportunities they might open up.=