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 C7C873858D38; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 16:00:30 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C7C873858D38
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1708358430;
	bh=yuE5hN7RUdqL+50TuaAe9qFgj8J/cZxbMVhTm7Rm948=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=yQWo8CTqJxXlIg2VZhkvB9Z62asgQT68qvWJuC1hKyhmmOzPGjuAc9Tf4cOpJJgVg
	 4rl2Yi2KT1bKwAP7jc9mXV5ozfyV71n6Q7aTMVkM5pTdAcgCSarpgd7RxduPLvDp10
	 TYN8LOYMN2HhfhOuxaKRdhWMFj3x54xnXSw+8caQ=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/113976] [11/12/13/14 Regression] explicit instantiation of
 const variable template following implicit instantiation is assembled in
 .rodata instead of .bss since r8-2857-g2ec399d8a6c9c2
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 16:00:29 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.2.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-bisection, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
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-113976-4-xglJgQ5Fex@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113976-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113976-4@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=3D113976

--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Testcase showing that it is just this case of implicit instantiation follow=
ed
by explicit that is problematic:
int foo () { return 42; }
template <int N>
const int a =3D foo ();
const int *b =3D &a <0>;
template <int N>
const int c =3D foo ();
template const int c <0>;
template <int N>
const int d =3D foo ();
const int *e =3D &d <0>;
template const int d <0>;
template <int N>
const int f =3D foo ();
template const int f <0>;
const int *g =3D &f <0>;
int main () {}=