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 02A9038582BD; Sun, 20 Aug 2023 09:34:28 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 02A9038582BD
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1692524068;
	bh=ppbnooyraheGQi2NSv/ec6Keq34olWLD/LeCfOdznFE=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=SDUnQT8Y/yNlHuicWwC5h/nyUaKIP5PuQgRwKYfJDcg758Q/m5pV63UdONbPYjmzp
	 SWfdIL5tOhVUrtlGOCWYtCi5zSDCIVnZaBUNju6raKkt1BywScZKB4aWvsSaUixOn/
	 FGhdUrorcZc6JMbOrAC3LHYTIhxxuOqwo+6bZA24=
From: "sagebar at web dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug debug/111080] [11/12/13/14 Regression] restrict qualifier
 causes extra debug info to happen
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2023 09:34:27 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: debug
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-bisection
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: sagebar at web dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-111080-4-g9i2nRpteJ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-111080-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-111080-4@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=3D111080

--- Comment #2 from sagebar at web dot de ---
@Andrew Pinski

Of course: yes. I did make a mistake there, but only for this case:

> int (*fun_t)(struct foo *);                 // Leak (even w/o restrict!)

asm:
...
        .globl  fun_t
        .section        .bss
        .align 4
        .type   fun_t, @object
        .size   fun_t, 4
fun_t:
        .zero   4
...



In the other case:

> static int (*fun_t)(struct foo *);          // Leak (even w/o restrict!)

asm:
...
        # No data-symbol is generated for `fun_t`
...



Gcc actually doesn't generate a .bss-symbol for the static variable (since =
it's
unused), but it still generates debug inforation for `struct foo`. So I gue=
ss
strike `int (*fun_t)(struct foo *);` from the list, but keep `static int
(*fun_t)(struct foo *);` which still leaks=