public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug ipa/107931] [12/13/14 Regression] -Og causes always_inline to fail since r12-6677-gc952126870c92cf2
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 10:30:27 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-107931-4-4wrgABQdnq@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-107931-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107931
--- Comment #27 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107931
>
> --- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #25)
> > Btw, I'd rather go the opposite and make the testcase at hand always invalid
> > and diagnosed which means diagnose taking the address of always-inline
> > declared functions and never emit an out-of-line body for them.
>
> That would need an exception at least for gnu extern inline always_inline
> functions,
> because the way they are used in glibc requires &open etc. to be valid (and use
> then as fallback the out of line open).
Sure, already the C frontend should resolve to the out-of-line open call
there, we shouldn't do this in the middle-end. Yes, indirect 'open' will
then not be fortified, but so what.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-23 10:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-30 7:52 [Bug c/107931] New: [12 Regression] -Od causes always_inline to fail me at xenu dot pl
2022-11-30 7:55 ` [Bug c/107931] [12 Regression] -Og " me at xenu dot pl
2022-11-30 12:30 ` [Bug ipa/107931] [12/13 Regression] -Og causes always_inline to fail since r12-6677-gc952126870c92cf2 marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-30 12:52 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-01 15:34 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-01 17:59 ` me at xenu dot pl
2022-12-01 18:02 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-02 7:22 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2022-12-21 10:44 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-02-17 10:16 ` sam at gentoo dot org
2023-02-18 6:32 ` ishikawa at yk dot rim.or.jp
2023-02-18 6:35 ` ishikawa at yk dot rim.or.jp
2023-02-18 7:05 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-02-18 7:10 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-02-18 23:34 ` ishikawa at yk dot rim.or.jp
2023-02-20 7:49 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-02-20 10:40 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-02-20 10:51 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2023-02-21 7:33 ` ishikawa at yk dot rim.or.jp
2023-02-21 7:36 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2023-02-21 11:56 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2023-05-08 12:26 ` [Bug ipa/107931] [12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-12 10:11 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-12 10:26 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-12 11:56 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-23 8:31 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-23 8:39 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-23 10:30 ` rguenther at suse dot de [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-107931-4-4wrgABQdnq@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).