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 60D0F3858C83; Fri,  3 Mar 2023 17:09:12 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 60D0F3858C83
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1677863352;
	bh=jU+ETGFPRuMZfe35Anpwx2blV6yHxbsZ8u3H99LIKTI=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=CQNtnkhwNPMufTzdMKYbEKKEo2oPn/OZBqRCHF8AalPw22emoMG4vYHW2Bg7JM9Nn
	 twVTgFrbnD7Tsz38EShFW5bBz40pr/SnSStCfIiZqJPTlLv8SGc3iUrsl2r9JGfbgs
	 23+0MFrvdWs0Jzc3Lm/gMVdjovBhM6WWzm1R+2ec=
From: "hubicka at ucw dot cz" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/108887] [13 Regression] ICE in
 process_function_and_variable_attributes since r13-3601
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2023 17:09:12 +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: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: hubicka at ucw dot cz
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-108887-4-SVPBBEyffP@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108887-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108887-4@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=3D108887

--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz> ---
> Perhaps, but shouldn't we also unlink_from_assembler_name_hash (node, fal=
se);?
> I think the point of the current removal is that we've discovered the man=
gling
> alias clashes with some other symbol.
cgraph_nodes are associated to decls and we allow multiple nodes to
share same name.  So I think if you just reset it, things will work
since new node will be created for the clashing decl and the alias will
eventually be removed as unused (at least I hope so - this is a
slipperly side-case)=