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 0AF733858431; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 05:11:24 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0AF733858431
From: "jason at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/104539] Failed to inline a very simple template function
 when it's explicit instantiated.
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 05:11:23 +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: 11.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jason at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
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-104539-4-M7JmzUdZ0o@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-104539-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-104539-4@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: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 05:11:24 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D104539

--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> the explicit instantiation lacks COMDAT (but has comdat_group) and it
> has forced_by_abi.
>=20
> I'm not sure the C++ standard calls out any semantic difference for
> explicit vs. implicit instantiations but maybe the Itanium ABI does.

The ABI says nothing about explicit vs. implicit instantiations.

mark_decl_instantiated cleared DECL_COMDAT to fix PR10968, where we failed =
to
emit an explicit instantiation.  But that was before mark_needed; now that =
we
have that, I'd think it makes sense to have DECL_COMDAT set on explicit
instantiations just like implicit ones.=