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 668353858D28; Tue,  2 Apr 2024 22:31:52 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 668353858D28
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1712097112;
	bh=Ft7F1zxRWQbCFxvwVJuiTvLFh3tBPY3qRDWKGPvd6hE=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=lXYfXf6GejeVv3K8wSTPsAgeKBcRI6faTBx7sa7RzvolaVgG8fNpSvCttkkDXj22a
	 3UBfy6PKfOfKZWiVl7QggBbnJX9bEIaPTFgGtQ1xRYNyNsHwt4B4w0I9bJqtTKd/sd
	 Wy0T5VKBx1Z954nxEy2MaeoaPbNSS3qswATYNaIM=
From: "iains at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/111067] g++.dg/opt/icf{1,2,3}.C tests fail on darwin
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2024 22:31:52 +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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: testsuite-fail
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: iains at gcc dot gnu.org
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: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-111067-4-sDXs1c1uRx@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-111067-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-111067-4@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=3D111067

--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #10)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #7)
> > > So I am actually asking if the extension actually has any useful mean=
ing?
> >=20
> > For non-darwin, yes, it requests the storage of two initializer lists t=
o be
> > merged (see the commit msg for r14-1500-g4d935f52b0d5c0).
>=20
> Though that doesn't involve the attribute, and promoting init-lists to
> static should work fine on darwin.

I think that is working we end up with two constant text arrays (no copy via
automatic storage as mentioned in the paper)

> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> > The question then is whether the attribute is supposed to be a non-bind=
ing
> > request or not.
> >=20
> > If it's a non-binding request then the test should be adjusted/unsuppor=
ted
> > for this target.
>=20
> It is a non-binding request. And yes, if this optimization is problematic=
 on
> darwin, we should adjust the test.

Actually, the optimisation is failing on Darwin - we produce two distinct
arrays.

(although, if it succeeds then technically that's breaking the ABI since we
then have two external symbols with the same addresss).

SO I suppose the question is do we want to figure out why the opt is failing
(knowing that if it succeeds that is a secondary issue) - or just
dg-xfail-run-if for Darwin?

This is what we generate now:
        .const
        .align 3
_i:
        .long   1
        .long   2
        .long   3
        .globl _j
        .align 3
_j:
        .long   1
        .long   2
        .long   3

and we do access i and j directly (i.e. not via the GOT).=