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 D15893893648; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 07:34:18 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D15893893648
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/98209] [8/9/10/11 Regression] printf failed with O1
 or above
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 07:34:18 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 9.3.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 8.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-98209-4-RCPRS4dzGr@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-98209-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-98209-4@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: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 07:34:18 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D98209

--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Thu, 28 Jan 2021, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D98209
>=20
> Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
>=20
>            What    |Removed                     |Added
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
>                  CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
>=20
> --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> But e.g. for the *intrin.h intrinsics, ignoring the ISA requirements that=
 it
> got from the target pragmas is highly undesirable, we do need the diagnos=
tics
> and refuse to inline them, otherwise they will ICE all over.
> And it is unclear how to differentiate between ISA requirements that were=
 added
> because of the command line option flags vs. ISA requirements that got ad=
ded
> through target pragmas or target attributes.

For select cases we have sth like cfun->uses_math and chose to ignore
some (target specific) settings based on things we use in the IL.  We
could go much further here (but of course _not_ scan the IL in the
respective function - we'd have to pre-compute things somehow, like
adding target specific fields in the inline summary / merging and
when computing that, allow the target to amend).

I think the *intrin.h example is not really relevant as their direct
caller is very unlikely to differ in setting.=