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 B26AC3858C2F; Thu, 25 Aug 2022 16:26:18 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B26AC3858C2F
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1661444778;
	bh=sp418SUbKS2nE2DEMxzrK/YDP/jBXa3shbYcPaODMSk=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=ylcqF4pp3uTsXkA0ZB0RdRkga8z8+z8in/dtZtAf+bYFDdH8wqEnXuQm9WH7decsH
	 90f+zLSGB20264VTsDWjBxqHuZ8Jk7taIQLzuGNnIKWwJoyBTfHsKwfC3DfFI6aUnj
	 ULmxaEkLSvPX1lyfW1CVzMaeW4wwb/cAI+GbZFho=
From: "dthorn at google dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/106725] LTO semantics for __attribute__((leaf))
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2022 16:26:16 +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: dthorn at google dot com
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-bmR117wkMU@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 #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.

Sure, but what prevents GCC from making this assumption? Are all uses of le=
af
evaluated before the TUs are merged? Does GCC have some provenance tracking=
 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?=