From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 0CB0D3857C42; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 06:14:29 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0CB0D3857C42
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1596089669;
 bh=P3ysC9yVHoAwZ3bD7kJsdjmAT8rYbj2DoSoLkBhWSYo=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=okbvocwmO/spIZ3O4Ae9Hq5GCA8vuIq2mi1xGfHuIb7jUQkg+Ch4RswMQnfA3BTyV
 Fh4EdNIQunZ+DPdm4r2VwGBeYHcdgUWvcqGs2PUhPPu4P51VEXZUKN4kY9JJcT/8qy
 O+81X3xCkpqpt/VU+dUojD6nxlbHsSkI2NgczUBc=
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug debug/96383] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Full ABI information
 missing missing from GCC compiled C
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 06:14:28 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: debug
X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.1.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 8.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cf_known_to_work bug_status everconfirmed
 cf_known_to_fail target_milestone cf_reconfirmed_on cc short_desc
Message-ID: <bug-96383-4-PbU89br6I0@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-96383-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-96383-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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 <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 06:14:29 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D96383

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Known to work|                            |4.8.5, 4.9.4
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
      Known to fail|                            |11.0, 7.5.0
   Target Milestone|---                         |8.5
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2020-07-30
                 CC|                            |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
            Summary|Full ABI information        |[8/9/10/11 Regression] Full
                   |missing missing from GCC    |ABI information missing
                   |compiled C                  |missing from GCC compiled C

--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed.  With -O0 -g fflush isn't even mentioned.=20
-fno-eliminate-unused-debug-{symbols,types} does not help.  Small testcase:

#include <stdio.h>

int main()
{
  fflush (stdout);
}


GCC 4.8 and 4.9, but only with -O -g, not -O0 -g, have

 <1><39a>: Abbrev Number: 16 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
    <39b>   DW_AT_external    : 1
    <39b>   DW_AT_name        : (indirect string, offset: 0x1e8): fflush
    <39f>   DW_AT_decl_file   : 6
    <3a0>   DW_AT_decl_line   : 204
    <3a1>   DW_AT_prototyped  : 1
    <3a1>   DW_AT_type        : <0x129>
    <3a5>   DW_AT_declaration : 1
    <3a5>   DW_AT_sibling     : <0x3af>
 <2><3a9>: Abbrev Number: 17 (DW_TAG_formal_parameter)
    <3aa>   DW_AT_type        : <0x3af>
 <2><3ae>: Abbrev Number: 0
 <1><3af>: Abbrev Number: 6 (DW_TAG_pointer_type)
    <3b0>   DW_AT_byte_size   : 8
    <3b1>   DW_AT_type        : <0x2e0>

so this is a regression introduced with GCC 5.  But of course we should fix
-O0 -g as well where it doesn't seem to be a regression.=