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 179003858028; Fri,  2 Dec 2022 07:22:45 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 179003858028
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1669965765;
	bh=xJnwHVAm2ak8upDne0YEzuvMrxq7nVR+x2aLkkkIfDc=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=TvAizWo+mdM81l0VISfx+VwMWw2NEx8WEPKee+/XQOalbl7peRo4PaDW/YYtm1kOh
	 4IP4Bhnvub8i46xYTqLQE7yFYoqYDYxcu/avOFkn5WsdR55haeYTEmgL2oFHIlRU72
	 pV9ZczqtCP3R3U8czeD7RuzH2ZOhnWVPUFFoVvLw=
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: Fri, 02 Dec 2022 07:22:44 +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-UJ6dOWAmGU@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 #7 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Thu, 1 Dec 2022, me at xenu dot pl wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107931
>=20
> --- Comment #5 from Tomasz Konojacki <me at xenu dot pl> ---
> To sum this thread up, there are undocumented rules that can cause a
> semantically identical program to be rejected by the compiler under certa=
in
> optimisation levels (with an uninformative error message) and users are
> expected to know them.
>=20
> Thank you.

It's even documented (I've marked the relevant sentence with
---> ... <---):

@item always_inline
@cindex @code{always_inline} function attribute
Generally, functions are not inlined unless optimization is specified.
For functions declared inline, this attribute inlines the function
independent of any restrictions that otherwise apply to inlining.
Failure to inline such a function is diagnosed as an error.
---> Note that if such a function is called indirectly the compiler may
or may not inline it depending on optimization level and a failure
to inline an indirect call may or may not be diagnosed. <---=