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 B07E03858D20; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 07:36:47 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B07E03858D20
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1676965007;
	bh=cXlzlN5jWZXsxGvZBqZnLbrsKQ2mw9VqAIJDaLpJjtM=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=cuJSCjBaf3S3u0zVN6GLP/6tM8x2aJk40Xpiy5pHY5Efpq3zt+70KKgFA8JQd1KDE
	 0xxLEmTWIasCJI7/Zi7gIicPgs85cCGCqrMcnCyMsy1YSL0bbvr5FpjSd4Esrhq1Pa
	 1ATjzOpM/jrZeud8+s1w8H4+VlwnB4/axiAK6wsM=
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug ipa/107931] [12/13 Regression] -Og causes always_inline to fail
 since r12-6677-gc952126870c92cf2
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2023 07:36:47 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: ipa
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-107931-4-OwvrYEn3Bm@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107931-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107931-4@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=3D107931

--- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Tue, 21 Feb 2023, ishikawa at yk dot rim.or.jp wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107931
>=20
> --- Comment #18 from ishikawa,chiaki <ishikawa at yk dot rim.or.jp> ---
> I reported the issue to the following github for a very fast hashing func=
tion
> library.
> https://github.com/Cyan4973/xxHash/issues/800
>=20
> From the discussion there, I figured -Og does not define __NO_INLINE__ as=
 -O0
> would define it.
> Well the discussion refers to the problem mentioned earlier about the same
> issue.
> In there, the following mentions something about __NO_INLINE__.
> https://github.com/Cyan4973/xxHash/pull/720#issuecomment-1414481935
>=20
>=20
> So I settled on manually define __NO_INLINE__ on the compiler command lin=
e.
> This makes it the compilation succeed.
> (The code seems to be written in such a manner that always_inline is not=
=20
> declared for the two functions if __NO_INLINE__ is defiend.)
>=20
> It would be great if -Og can define macro __NO_INLINE__ as -O0 does.
> Oh wait, -fno-inline has the same effect(?).

-Og does inline small functions so defining __NO_INLINE__ would not
be correct=