[Bug ipa/89341] [7/8/9 Regression] ICE in get, at cgraph.h:1332
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89341
--- Comment #12 from JunMa ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #11)
> Removing the alias check seems correct to me. The same body alias patch was
> long and needed special casing those aliases on quite few places. I am not
> at all sure why I added this one, but it definitly silences the diagnostics
> completely that is wrong.
we cannot remove the alias check here directly, since the definition and alias
field of target node is set to true in cgraph_node::create_alias. Consider:
static void __attribute__((weakref("bar"))) foo1(void);
static void __attribute__((weakref("foo1"))) foo2(void);
void bar();
if alias check removed, gcc gives warning at foo2.
I have sent the patch to maillist， see
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-03/msg01249.html， please have a look.
[Bug ipa/89341] [7/8/9 Regression] ICE in get, at cgraph.h:1332
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89341 --- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka --- Removing the alias check seems correct to me. The same body alias patch was long and needed special casing those aliases on quite few places. I am not at all sure why I added this one, but it definitly silences the diagnostics completely that is wrong.
[Bug ipa/89341] [7/8/9 Regression] ICE in get, at cgraph.h:1332
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89341 JunMa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||JunMa at linux dot alibaba.com --- Comment #10 from JunMa --- I saw same issue with alias attribute. gcc should error out when weakref or alias attribute attached to a definition. I'll send patch and test cases later.
[Bug ipa/89341] [7/8/9 Regression] ICE in get, at cgraph.h:1332
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89341 --- Comment #9 from David Malcolm --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8) > (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #7) > > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6) > > > David: Are you planning to send for it? > > I'm not sure what you mean by this, sorry. > > I'm sorry for bad formulation. I was asking whether you're planning to send > a patch candidate that you presented in #c4? Sorry, no; I'd prefer to leave this to someone more familiar with the cgraph code.
[Bug ipa/89341] [7/8/9 Regression] ICE in get, at cgraph.h:1332
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89341 --- Comment #8 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #7) > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6) > > David: Are you planning to send for it? > I'm not sure what you mean by this, sorry. I'm sorry for bad formulation. I was asking whether you're planning to send a patch candidate that you presented in #c4?
[Bug ipa/89341] [7/8/9 Regression] ICE in get, at cgraph.h:1332
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89341 --- Comment #7 from David Malcolm --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6) > David: Are you planning to send for it? I'm not sure what you mean by this, sorry.
[Bug ipa/89341] [7/8/9 Regression] ICE in get, at cgraph.h:1332
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89341 --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška --- David: Are you planning to send for it?
[Bug ipa/89341] [7/8/9 Regression] ICE in get, at cgraph.h:1332
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89341 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid Priority|P3 |P2
