From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28432 invoked by alias); 3 Jan 2013 16:37:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 26235 invoked by uid 48); 3 Jan 2013 16:37:01 -0000 From: "hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug lto/48065] LTO: assertion failed in optimize_inline_calls, at tree-inline.c:4246 Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 16:37:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: lto X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-checking, lto X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2013-01/txt/msg00208.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48065 --- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka 2013-01-03 16:37:00 UTC --- Hmm, rejecting inlines late at ltrans stage really is problem as discussed earlier - we make assumptions on the optimizations of constant parameters and we won't export offline copy in partitioning so it may lead to undefined reference. How do you expect this to work? Where we do the refusal? I do not see any code there. I would really preffer inlining to work (and produce wrong code in undefined cases perhaps with warning) rather than giving up on the inline plan. If this is not possible to implement, we can materialize a clone with the expected constant propagated and redirect call there, but it is tricky to implement, too.