public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug lto/47497] [4.6 Regression] SPEC CPU 2006 failed to link with LTO -fuse-linker-plugin -fwhole-program
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 15:22:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-47497-4-iaIhJ8sNqV@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-47497-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47497

--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-26 14:32:42 UTC ---
The problem is in the alias merging code in lto-symtab. It does:
alias->thunk.alias = prevailing_node->decl;
that is wrong for thunks, as for thunks pointing to thunk (like this one) the
alias is not the decl of function thunk is associated for but decl of thunk.

Fixing this problem however leads to futher problems (ICE at ltrans streaming
in time, because we merge aliases incorrectly...)

I don't think the aliases should be merged actually, just the aliases
associated with prevailed decl removed. thunk.alias should always point to the
prevailing decl, but I guess if we just drop aliases from other definitions
this should just work.

Jakub, what was logic for the current alias merging code?

The problem in soplex is that function in question is comdat and it has two
actual definitions. With decl merging we mix together local label for thunk
from the first definition with local label for the thunk from second
definition.
It bit surprises me how this happens, given that the aliases should match and
we should consistently choose one or another.

Honza


  parent reply	other threads:[~2011-02-26 14:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-01-27 21:23 [Bug lto/47497] New: [4.6 Regression] SPEC CPU 2006 failed to link with LTO hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2011-01-27 22:21 ` [Bug lto/47497] " hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2011-01-27 23:14 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2011-01-28 12:37 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-28 12:41 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-28 14:08 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2011-01-28 14:46 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-30 17:56 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2011-02-06 17:42 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2011-02-08 14:52 ` [Bug lto/47497] [4.6 Regression] SPEC CPU 2006 failed to link with LTO -fuse-linker-plugin -fwhole-program rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-12 13:05 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-25 23:07 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-26  9:38 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2011-02-26 11:18 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-26 14:01 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-26 15:22 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2011-02-28  9:14 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-28  9:25 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2011-02-28  9:25 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-03-01 19:08 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-03-01 19:09 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-03-04 18:50 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-03-04 18:51 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-47497-4-iaIhJ8sNqV@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).