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 341F83858C2D; Sat, 13 May 2023 03:19:52 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 341F83858C2D
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1683947992;
	bh=WfVoxCwn0PMKhUs/67V2CxjzrjIwOiz+5fpJrBlnqC4=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=fXQdv9xvtjv1cvIXTHX+dA4AgUf1JQElNx52/gDWA8l04E6zbxstFKpPQvAm11FsB
	 qYm4n8JQt8PdaDtt6eM5CIDPETPH72U+NmrHtOs8JgF4R3maQW62oqkHpolLw276EM
	 +tIbOajsYQHM99ah4O/hKAtdgEblKbZo+p05pw6Q=
From: "xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/106943] GCC building clang/llvm with LTO flags causes ICE
 in clang
Date: Sat, 13 May 2023 03:19:51 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code, needs-reduction
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING
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-106943-4-o9JvCXsoa2@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106943-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106943-4@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=3D106943

--- Comment #29 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #28)
> (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #21)
> > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #18)
> > > Maybe.  Should we send a patch?
> >=20
> > Yes, if we have a volunteer.
>=20
> I'm creating it, but from the description of the LLVM issue 24952:
>=20
> "To put it simply, operator delete for class User inspects memory of the
> object after the end of its lifetime. This shows as a use-after-dtor error
> when running under MemorySanitizer."
>=20
> So it seems technically we'll need -fno-lifetime-dse here?  Our docs say
> -flifetime-dse only "preserve stores before the constructor starts" but
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  I mean, -flifetime-dse=3D1
> "still treat the object as dead after the destructor".=