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 106F73858D35; Tue,  6 Feb 2024 08:29:55 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 106F73858D35
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1707208196;
	bh=GTZ3k9zA6ins2Y7hjeS3Y6xLdN0bN42JUcLnYczpd5s=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=uL6DLT0jis937m0niUKR/AqeXnb5M+t+CSaMCLeLOsYrVTlnF2LOi7rbagEmHyXRA
	 mveBqWJb+UJ272442wYDr4gESFVXVAfkY/uXBXCpX1MipCPHJXn5XM5Kuk76GcdGzl
	 iF5n8yFVuh+9whEWjnqmbeiv+g70O52yHafStFrU=
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <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 08:29:53 +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: rguenth 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: 13.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-113359-4-EJCu8x1xOA@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 #10 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I see the 'pair' type is marked TYPE_CXX_ODR_P, I'd say you should see a
ODR type violation diagnostic, and if you don't, this means we force differ=
ent
alias sets for both?  Not sure - Honza added this stuff.

It only affects TYPE_CANONICAL though, regular type merging shouldn't merge
them but it's likely that you get to see another type because of COMDATs
and symbol merging chosing a different prevailing function which has that
other type?

Btw, can you dump the mangled name of the type?  It should be
type_with_linkage_p () I think, of course 'pair' itself is a template
so only a specific instantiation should be subject to ODR.  (of course
there might be ODR functions that use different instantiated pair in
the signature ..)=