From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 597A0388A82B; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 13:22:26 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 597A0388A82B DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1599571346; bh=2vYiNE1x9JDeX4phWqwShk8qJ/NuG3SQSJQm+aePBb8=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=CozoT3OEHJO4nKH8oDf355kWfvslMor0rvrE+/ezsYMOGUdHfSzjowm95lpsblf6Q 9ofwrzirMttYZ2XacHepilniQX58p2kXFtskRg9IZAZJ3LR3HBsQaol9bEAlQi3uvE dLII/hpSl9e7npzLMW4wgl99donCqktwAQe4p1mk= From: "simon.marchi at polymtl dot ca" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug debug/96937] Duplicate DW_TAG_formal_parameter in out-of-line DW_TAG_subprogram instance Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2020 13:22:26 +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: 11.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: simon.marchi at polymtl dot ca X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- 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, 08 Sep 2020 13:22:26 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D96937 --- Comment #5 from Simon Marchi --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3) > Hmm, can you point out the issue in the reduced testcase? I can't see it= .=20 > The only cloning done I see is partial inlining so does > -fno-partial-inlining fix the issue for you? Doh, I indeed uploaded the wrong thing. My creduce test was trying to reproduce the "wrong parameter order" problem, which I later found was prob= ably not considered a bug, instead of the "duplicate parameter problem". I re-r= an it with the right test, I attached the result. The relevant portion of the DWARF is: 0x000003bb: DW_TAG_subprogram DW_AT_abstract_origin (0x00000383 "do_examine") DW_AT_low_pc (0x0000000000000000) DW_AT_high_pc (0x0000000000000039) DW_AT_frame_base (DW_OP_call_frame_cfa) DW_AT_GNU_all_call_sites (true) DW_AT_sibling (0x00000464) 0x000003d6: DW_TAG_variable DW_AT_abstract_origin (0x000003a4 "ai") 0x000003db: DW_TAG_variable DW_AT_abstract_origin (0x000003af "aq") DW_AT_location (DW_OP_fbreg -17) 0x000003e3: DW_TAG_formal_parameter DW_AT_abstract_origin (0x0000039f) DW_AT_location ( 9f 03 00 00 9f) 0x000003ef: DW_TAG_formal_parameter DW_AT_abstract_origin (0x0000039a) DW_AT_location ( 9a 03 00 00 9f) 0x000003fb: DW_TAG_formal_parameter DW_AT_abstract_origin (0x00000390 "y") 0x00000400: DW_TAG_formal_parameter DW_AT_abstract_origin (0x00000390 "y") The last two DW_TAG_formal_parameter refer to the same parameter.=