From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 5E311385700B; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 05:49:48 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5E311385700B DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1599457788; bh=wDOKl97AMVFcI4Wt4VBlfe+Qn0feFsuMBgQOu/PXYNw=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ha5M0Wx7q5fAQlo3PSktAHFX9W9b0On0U90HahBr3DaUTOuHZiWvFP3CfzcklZKkh PXxlbxRmUuXMB31uJJ2ipwmYTZ34iwExECzXkP1CQhkUabPPLROQQ3zP9yejA4aaIq G5cG4jJ/krfpjtllRT546klHf2ljiqDnLzDGQbCM= From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug debug/96937] Duplicate DW_TAG_formal_parameter in out-of-line DW_TAG_subprogram instance Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2020 05:49:48 +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: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 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: cc cf_reconfirmed_on bug_status everconfirmed 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: Mon, 07 Sep 2020 05:49:48 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D96937 Richard Biener changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org Last reconfirmed| |2020-09-07 Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Hmm, can you point out the issue in the reduced testcase? I can't see it. = The only cloning done I see is partial inlining so does -fno-partial-inlining f= ix the issue for you?=