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 17CB33858C53; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:58:47 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 17CB33858C53
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1680015527;
	bh=8pIWsRZAqe3e1cG4TQv4LYrheusGeG8ISbERbsNQsAU=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Zsph9TFX6UHbwlb1DEFjvUnvLPg1lujLuL7UifHjzzLzZ1z6aGXkiUU8UHO5O26gX
	 4/MDPl96vvyUxszZDgVvZSs+oKYsFb9GZNbAR1WAjsIahw81Zem6LTvmTjz1XW3gaH
	 2tzkxrG4cloWDmTNQWgPXTPoVuUQWewjwhjY56vY=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug ipa/106124] [11/12/13 Regression] ICE in
 dwarf2out_abstract_function, at dwarf2out.cc:23254
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:58:46 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: ipa
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code, openmp
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.4
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-106124-4-IvvR40ZQ54@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106124-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106124-4@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=3D106124

--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> I suppose that's the OMP reduction function and that's always(?) inlined?

The reduction "function" is something artificial which holds some expressio=
ns
for the
OpenMP reductions; we just need to attach those statements to some decl for
name lookup purposes.
The problem is what to do with lambdas defined inside of those expressions,=
 or
e.g. nested functions for the C case:
int q;

#pragma omp declare reduction (x : int : omp_out +=3D omp_in + ({ int a =3D=
 1; void
foo () { a++; } foo (); a; }))

void bar (int *, int *);

void
foo ()
{
  int r =3D 0, s =3D 0;
  #pragma omp parallel reduction (x : r, s)
  bar (&r, &s);
}

ICEs too.  Lambdas are there certainly valid, we try to pretend the artific=
ial
functions don't really exist for the debug info purposes, but apparently not
sufficiently.=