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 CCDC63858D3C; Mon, 11 Sep 2023 16:59:02 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org CCDC63858D3C
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1694451542;
	bh=as28c5qa7zdtO6vOxsYyke09yH6LkovtaDB4CID5JW8=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=NTbp/dj5erdBigeg3wr2wkGyIx2vitzy+nAe74dtWDwQzDzQEitnULNodbno2tNEq
	 FgtAFw+Q+9qwr7U0f6NorFb8PY2DP8HzM/uKs9KpZ6DVpUazg0RXzoSj9a57H1OogE
	 knIStNI5fObaXJiU3CrYxHR2D4u6nYtN7raovByo=
From: "frs.dumont at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/111050] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ABI break in
 _Hash_node_value_base since GCC 11
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 16:59:02 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ABI
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: frs.dumont at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-111050-4-RKFdMYEcdO@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-111050-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-111050-4@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=3D111050

--- Comment #9 from frs.dumont at gmail dot com ---
To be honest before that report I thought that preserving abi was just a=20
matter of preserving memory layout of types. I had no idea that member=20
methods mattered !

Lesson learned.

On 11/09/2023 13:52, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D111050
>
> --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> (In reply to Fran=C3=A7ois Dumont from comment #1)
>> It seems to be a limited issue as you need a non-optimized build.
> That's not a safe assumption. Inlining decisions can change across builds=
 and
> across architectures, and it's not safe to assume the affected functions =
will
> always be inlined, e.g. in the presence of explicit instantiation definit=
ions.
>
>> The only
>> impacted member is the _M_next() which is a simple static_cast, I'm very
>> surprised that it's not always inlined even if non-optimized.
> No functions are inlined for non-optimized builds, unless forced with
> always_inline.
>=