From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id D0DBF388B039; Fri, 29 May 2020 18:27:10 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D0DBF388B039 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1590776830; bh=14i6uzcKIegNf+nEPDGYoh+akhRchn/Ad+AdcVeSek8=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=VqIgFhHn0iF8m/UdgeaAIdAa5coKbXWzQvm07QJR0ei0pem7NShwblQHAnFfD+6f6 bc1L9h/WT6OASm6uD7iFPlaVZOgjRFkhrfJGFnD0r83l+0G6S7ShabZqifMLACCslC Uwia8zKWv/JP3XKUVHOSlK3fK6G8jtkGmn40rjAU= From: "egallager at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/92860] [8/9/10/11 regression] Global flags affected by -O settings are clobbered by optimize attribute Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 18:27:10 +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: egallager at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 10.2 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: Fri, 29 May 2020 18:27:10 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D92860 --- Comment #19 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Martin Li=C5=A1ka from comment #18) > @egallager: Why did you add 'deferred' keyword? I sent a patch for it to = GCC > patches mailing list. because: (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #16) > Re-target to GCC 10, definitely not material for backporting unless we > discover critical issues (that should be individually backported).=20 > Eventually fully fixed only for GCC 11.=