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 A7A013851428; Fri, 26 Aug 2022 07:15:25 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A7A013851428
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1661498125;
	bh=NDOjkpZpzODsZEELduqOMyj7GDZht7hB0PklbvRr068=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=gOCw+QGlhtTa4Hjpp3wvA/y40O3bSq1iYDpBNvrnHTsg1usgq1R0zliSDS3TIIRhz
	 UWmnekpO+/Z4FMG3n2rbM6qbrnyKmsnYgpAPQAG9IL9Y6S3TJk6lYtHfqU0xZ/q2f4
	 iC4P49WrmrpxiFAIDtrRPUAP1BTNfH6N1apLxDxg=
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/106725] LTO semantics for __attribute__((leaf))
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 07:15:25 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: documentation, lto
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
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-106725-4-6S8d1iKX5s@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106725-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106725-4@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=3D106725

--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Thu, 25 Aug 2022, dthorn at google dot com wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106725
>=20
> --- Comment #4 from Daniel Thornburgh <dthorn at google dot com> ---
> (In reply to rguenther@suse.de from comment #3)
> > As said, GCC shouldn't assume this since leaf is defined at translation
> > unit level, not at LTO level.
>=20
> Sure, but what prevents GCC from making this assumption? Are all uses of =
leaf
> evaluated before the TUs are merged? Does GCC have some provenance tracki=
ng for
> which TU a given function came from in the merged view? Is there a pass I
> missed to drop leaf after merging but before it's used?

Honza should be able to answer this.=