From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-414960-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 10655 invoked by alias); 12 Feb 2013 02:02:59 -0000
Received: (qmail 10361 invoked by uid 48); 12 Feb 2013 02:02:34 -0000
From: "matt at use dot net" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/56231] warning traces have bogus line information when using LTO
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 02:02:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: lto
X-Bugzilla-Severity: major
X-Bugzilla-Who: matt at use dot net
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-56231-4-Xua2etGr3Q@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-56231-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-56231-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2013-02/txt/msg01125.txt.bz2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56231

--- Comment #12 from Matt Hargett <matt at use dot net> 2013-02-12 02:02:33 UTC ---
looking at the patch for merging elsewhere, I noticed that

 location_t
 lto_input_location (struct bitpack_d *bp, struct data_in *data_in)
 {
+  static const char *current_file;
+  static int current_line;
+  static int current_col;
   bool file_change, line_change, column_change;
   unsigned len;
-  bool prev_file = data_in->current_file != NULL;
+  bool prev_file = current_file != NULL;


current_file is potentially of unknown value on the comparison in the last
line, right? or is there some static const initialization rule that implicitly
initializes it to 0?