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 48EB93858414; Sun,  1 Oct 2023 00:53:15 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 48EB93858414
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1696121595;
	bh=TnGdaUk45rvxCRISnj9FpJNugwCPUd6nNgXHKCoxPew=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=l70nPZLlNMUIKVJwpSnWwbdNaYj4NLA2yA3uPaH9O13qalJsynX1k/VnpwNQBBWyX
	 nk4l2PzkbRRDzrc94irfVfgYrPTzxO43h7NZiZ06C9cW1eDd50ulV3TptjVfH8peF4
	 Och29YBaGTcxoOSJOvCNrauyw4AlvVtyV95Usoco=
From: "lukas.graetz@tu-darmstadt.de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug ipa/111643] __attribute__((flatten)) with -O1 runs out of
 memory (killed cc1)
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2023 00:53:15 +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: 13.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: lukas.graetz@tu-darmstadt.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: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-111643-4-GEI937d1LL@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-111643-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-111643-4@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=3D111643

--- Comment #4 from Lukas Gr=C3=A4tz <lukas.graetz@tu-darmstadt.de> ---
Sorry, just to clarify, whether I understood your two comments correctly.
Should foo() be inlined in the following example because flatten works
recursively?

void foo (void) {
    // CODE
}

int bar_original (void) {
    // CODE
    foo();
    // CODE
}

__attribute__((flatten))
int bar (void) {
    // INSTRUMENTATION CAN GO HERE
    return bar_original();
}

I thought that according to the documentation of flatten, foo() would not be
affected by the flatten attribute of bar(). It says: "For a function marked
with this attribute, every call inside this function is inlined, if possibl=
e."
The call to foo() is not directly inside the function bar(). Only if
bar_original() had also the __attribute__((flatten)), I would expect foo() =
to
be made inline in bar() because of recursive flatten. Of course, it could s=
till
be inlined because some heuristics...=