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 73FC43858C50; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 06:46:12 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 73FC43858C50
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1680072372;
	bh=FjFM8E9Yb/cbfvv7UgxnDeMLgR4+2hhryOArW2sUyYs=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=JouQ9s4kZDV7VWCxfiGEunEZGqbxby8Hfm+duJceZvUUeagAGNZSApSoUUVdlOvaB
	 5V/4yJa2J0CiHWBooi3+uxtyNR9T3U7SPbzy51IKX1ecY/0OsfTqyf5sQZGDHNtW9Q
	 hcP6hTZx0/Tv92Lesh9qJMmhkHIyHR5uakIcRGAU=
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <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: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 06:46:12 +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: rguenther at suse dot de
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-dLe3Rn8O1y@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 #5 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Tue, 28 Mar 2023, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106124
>=20
> --- 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(?) inline=
d?
>=20
> The reduction "function" is something artificial which holds some express=
ions
> for the
> OpenMP reductions; we just need to attach those statements to some decl f=
or
> name lookup purposes.
> The problem is what to do with lambdas defined inside of those expression=
s, or
> e.g. nested functions for the C case:
> int q;
>=20
> #pragma omp declare reduction (x : int : omp_out +=3D omp_in + ({ int a =
=3D 1; void
> foo () { a++; } foo (); a; }))
>=20
> void bar (int *, int *);
>=20
> void
> foo ()
> {
>   int r =3D 0, s =3D 0;
>   #pragma omp parallel reduction (x : r, s)
>   bar (&r, &s);
> }
>=20
> ICEs too.  Lambdas are there certainly valid, we try to pretend the artif=
icial
> functions don't really exist for the debug info purposes, but apparently =
not
> sufficiently.

Set DECL_IGNORED?=