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 656BA3858C52; Sat, 13 May 2023 03:18:51 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 656BA3858C52
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1683947931;
	bh=+p70H8BhSJKQsVv4pQmqvifENq6n9jZrAie9ndwuaUw=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=BPKeksGRTpWZowQ61F5Ebtj95uqirMGxMunUdH0UOizIiMNNOoeum7h5gb2PaN1U+
	 78OXmiWL5xy802qWHrD1ntRHZlz8/HntfbuanLEx966+Arn+/3jptiz8dEyTm3e+Kx
	 RsLRr8qbsMNNfVKlsbavtdC2tn0pm42otTL7TPcY=
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 03:18:50 +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-qxBZgfVuPP@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 #28 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(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.

I'm creating it, but from the description of the LLVM issue 24952:

"To put it simply, operator delete for class User inspects memory of the ob=
ject
after the end of its lifetime. This shows as a use-after-dtor error when
running under MemorySanitizer."

So it seems technically we'll need -fno-lifetime-dse here?  Our docs say
-flifetime-dse only "preserve stores before the constructor starts" but "st=
ill
treat the object as dead after the destructor".=