From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 6842D3858CD1; Sun, 26 Nov 2023 18:17:34 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6842D3858CD1 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1701022654; bh=o7DWHziFcMXJKLjpExj7WDVf4M+kSm/OqTBwh1e2gbc=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=sTrpSGL4M6H0Jzp0YJsphITy3QuLLv4C1gNZGSPL3dF0QgiuxFf+6wGgPq5rnen+L aSWitmK8aXiDqBw7WPQGtykyw5z/pbsEr/Nhg5WI+9plFzskT8ufGdmOvejzYaaO+L wv1COZTALyVNLJ9ovxkVedPg/RSQtiw6OnqChNcw= From: "uecker at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug lto/112716] LTO optimization with struct of variable ssize Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2023 18:17:33 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: lto X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: alias, wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: uecker at gcc dot gnu.org 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: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D112716 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- . Inside the same TU there are different types. But note that this is across= TUs where the structs with same tag and and compatible members are supposed to = be compatible (they could come from a shared header). I would assume these ru= les hold also for the GNU extension. In C23 the structs will be compatible also inside a TU (without GNU extensions, but I I think the same rules should th= en also apply to structs with the GNU extension).=