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 1D37D3858291; Tue,  6 Feb 2024 12:47:43 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 1D37D3858291
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1707223663;
	bh=+SFqjxG1B8Si10WoSeQYNpujEMq30YHKOx0Ceb3zG1I=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=GhAI8Be1sfZ5CkvMxg0pXh2ffvNe7jUF2pwvkq3vxY2pM7ck3UuBk2GegpmO/OzXc
	 /HujRINrmp8hjpavDmTEYOsVUAqrSHTf8D/PyXnCW6908d4/10vqa2zHc7iwUoo8eB
	 lv92IQCsCZ3VJ5542BdJN6MgrU5WoRRZhSWyWjeA=
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug ipa/113359] [13 Regression] LTO miscompilation of ceph on
 aarch64
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2024 12:47:42 +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: 13.2.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: lto, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse 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: 13.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-113359-4-AFQ9Yc1haZ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113359-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113359-4@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=3D113359

--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D113359
>=20
> --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Just going from the demangled name of
> std::pair<std::chrono::time_point<ceph::mono_clock,
> std::chrono::duration<unsigned long, std::ratio<1l, 1000000000l> > > cons=
t,
> Context*>
> it would surprise me if it was ODR violation in the testcase, because cla=
ss
> Context
> is only defined in Timer.ii, not in the other preprocessed source,
> ceph::mono_clock is defined in both but looks the same (and it is empty c=
lass
> anyway), and the pair uses Context* as second type anyway, so it is uncle=
ar how
> it could become something smaller than pointer.
> But, admittedly I haven't looked up at this under the debugger and not ev=
en
> sure where to look at that.

Might be also an interaction with IPA ICF in case there's a pointer to
the pair involved?=