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 A6AAE3858C56; Tue,  5 Mar 2024 10:52:47 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A6AAE3858C56
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1709635967;
	bh=RtZOoizsDcEqLhIH5bq/SKqeBYf5Vn+X5CucYx+ICho=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=UTkJTrrsfIkRHGaH5GlmwpCJuRw+Bo+cst+00uTsXIX21/SCsrBhlj2AP7PKcHVxU
	 I9Xr7ipYl7RJItaj1JA8QVOG2vdH2j8UqoSMY8UMbxDHJtiHdrCSY4bIOmqM2jgvrW
	 7HHzculwRp4G4g9ii/N136rJh5/eIRjkHSr0sB/o=
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/114232] [14 regression] ICE when building rr-5.7.0 with
 LTO on x86
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2024 10:52:47 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ubizjak at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-114232-4-ExTMB1Jchr@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-114232-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-114232-4@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=3D114232

--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D114232
>=20
> Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
>=20
>            What    |Removed                     |Added
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
>                  CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
>=20
> --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Still, it would be nice to understand what changed optimize_function_for_=
size_p
> (cfun)
> after IPA.  Is something adjusting node->count or node->frequency?
> Otherwise it should just depend on the optimize_size flag which should not
> change...

Maybe we share the TREE optimization node (it gets re-materialized
during LTO streaming) between hot and cold functions and the "first"
one getting in set_cfun will overwrite TREE_OPTIMIZATION_OPTABS in
init_tree_optimization_optabs (though it seems to overwrite things).

In any case I think the tree node sharing only looks at options, not
at function frequency so having TREE_OPTIMIZATION_OPTABS part of
the optimization node looks a bit fragile in the light of sharing.=