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 151AA385AC11; Thu, 25 Aug 2022 05:48:31 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 151AA385AC11
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1661406511;
	bh=gaV5mzyKrT9ogc2pGpPpvIruPJe8GN8ThOp/SUtXq4s=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=MYouW7+04AYkaRqOcTEJkh13AUN1c39fS7y3fMp37uzZhmIVY+htQ4F5Ufl4N79G8
	 u0wAVSWFVAFWFzXsCLFmTs7JlskbMwmdwCj7Wl2HXT//mBVHrZqCWYkzKitccaw9v7
	 Dbxc8OVIr7fm0RW0jwdeRuJyKf1TmUwEt1KBkWxA=
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: Thu, 25 Aug 2022 05:48:30 +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-wQQCyNiaUI@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 #3 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022, dthorn at google dot com wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106725
>=20
> --- Comment #2 from Daniel Thornburgh <dthorn at google dot com> ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > If GCC, with LTO, would partition the program into two LTRANS partition=
s,
> > one containing main and bar and one containing foo then applying this
> > optimization promise during LTRANS time on the main/bar partition would
> > be wrong as you say - but I think GCC doesn't do this.
>=20
> In this case, foo() was already compiled to native code outside of LTO.
> Wouldn't this then mean that its contents wouldn't be available for the W=
PA and
> LTRANS phases of the LTO code generation? It seems like the compiler woul=
dn't
> know that foo() might call bar(), and the presence of `__attribute__((lea=
f))`
> would cause it to assume that it doesn't call bar().

As said, GCC shouldn't assume this since leaf is defined at translation
unit level, not at LTO level.=