From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id D12343858418; Fri, 12 May 2023 14:23:41 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D12343858418 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1683901421; bh=3Zct+hCOfk49Hb+0SMspuG2LLnuiyu4EMMbchdfMpzc=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=tdk/VfmT2Rp+q53whr5pjqLS+WfZC2xDRil1fVAfwtjO8l41U7Iz7OaQAq9b7UlW/ 1NuwHn+SV6yMK9M24Yj/Dsg5qyKJ4vGnNZ8uvluB7wcf3fRjYFadgpZ5NnTjRGjr57 6j6xUCN9dUZo/b8KdcMN0IjWjR4JdsFflm29TYA8= From: "amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/106943] GCC building clang/llvm with LTO flags causes ICE in clang Date: Fri, 12 May 2023 14:23:41 +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: needs-reduction, wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: amonakov 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: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106943 --- Comment #14 from Alexander Monakov --- (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #13) > Indeed it is quite long time problem with clang not building with lifetime > DSE and strict aliasing. I wonder why this is not fixed on clang side? Because the problems were not communicated? I knew that Firefox needed -flifetime-dse=3D1, but it's the first time I hear that any such problems in Clang/LLVM were identified. I could not find any workaround for lifetime-dse in SUSE spec file for llvm= 16. Are you saying it was known and worked around somehow? Or it is not manifes= ting because LLVM is built without LTO?=