From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 9400A385840B; Tue, 14 Dec 2021 15:34:46 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9400A385840B From: "marxin at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/92860] [9/10/11/12 regression] Global flags affected by -O settings are clobbered by optimize attribute Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 15:34:46 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: deferred X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 15:34:46 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D92860 --- Comment #75 from Martin Li=C5=A1ka --- (In reply to David Binderman from comment #74) > (In reply to Martin Li=C5=A1ka from comment #72) > > You will manage, it's not rocket science. > >=20 > > So please, add break point at the place it triggers the ICE and do: > >=20 > > (gdb) p &ptr1->x_help_flag > > (gdb) p &ptr2->x_help_flag >=20 > For this to work, I had to replace the options-save.o with a version > compiled by -O0 and that made the problem go away ;-< Or you would have to print &ptr1->x_help_flag with a printf and then use gdb for the memory. >=20 > I am still happy to walk away from this bug report. It is known > to occur on only one variant of one architecture and it is hard > to reproduce. I can think of better things to work on in gcc. Ok... >=20 > As far as finding a machine with a bdver2 architecture, I suspect > any more recent AMD machine would be fine.=20 >=20 > Has no one checked the compile farm ? No, there's not a bdver2 machine.=