From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-476803-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 22782 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2015 10:05:56 -0000
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
Received: (qmail 22723 invoked by uid 55); 11 Feb 2015 10:05:53 -0000
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug lto/61886] [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] LTO breaks fread with _FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 10:05:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: lto
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic, lto, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-61886-4-xaFrsy22XR@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-61886-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-61886-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg01136.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61886

--- Comment #32 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61886
> 
> --- Comment #31 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz> ---
> > So, do we really want to go without this fixed again, for GCC 5?  Honza?  After
> > all this is an underlying wrong-code issue!  (wrong function is picked as
> > prevailing)
> 
> Well, I have only two hands and do not see reasonably simple solution. Will
> look into it
> again.  How this cause wrong code?

Hmm, maybe it can't (the "aliases" map to the same symbol).  But at least
if I produce another decl with say, attribute(regparm), and that gets
picked even though I didn't call it then it would be wrong-code
(of course that decl is technically invalid as the symbol it refers to
has different calling conventions).