public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <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 08:55:23 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-98209-4-yRuE2gjk5z@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-98209-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98209

--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to rguenther@suse.de from comment #10)
> I think the *intrin.h example is not really relevant as their direct
> caller is very unlikely to differ in setting.

In bugfree code sure.
When writing code, because there are so many ISA extensions it is often the
case one attempts to use an intrinsic that requires other ISA flags, and rely
on the compiler to diagnose that.
So, if we e.g. wanted to redeclare always_inline as being inlinable to anything
regardless of target and optimize flags, we'd need to add another attribute and
stick it on all the intrinsic that would say but for these require it.
But, even for the _FORTIFY_SOURCE inlines, I'm not really sure we e.g. want to
inline them into -O0 functions, because fortification relies on -O1+.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-01-29  8:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-12-08 21:35 [Bug c/98209] New: " jamesgua at ca dot ibm.com
2020-12-09  0:00 ` [Bug c/98209] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-12-09  1:27 ` jamesgua at ca dot ibm.com
2020-12-09  8:24 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-12-09  9:03 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-12-09  9:05 ` [Bug middle-end/98209] [8/9/10/11 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-12-09  9:05 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-12-09  9:08 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-12-09  9:18 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2020-12-09 15:04 ` jamesgua at ca dot ibm.com
2021-01-14 11:03 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-28 18:02 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-29  7:34 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2021-01-29  8:55 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2021-03-25 12:37 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-03-25 12:42 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2021-03-25 12:54 ` [Bug middle-end/98209] [8/9/10 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-03-25 13:59 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2021-05-14  9:54 ` [Bug middle-end/98209] [9/10 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-01  8:19 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-27  9:44 ` [Bug middle-end/98209] [10 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-06-28 10:42 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-07  9:18 ` [Bug middle-end/98209] [11/12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-98209-4-yRuE2gjk5z@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).