https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65361
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr65361_0.C.jj 2015-03-09 16:43:42.720534781
+0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr65361_0.C 2015-03-09 16:47:00.325356410 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+// { dg-lto-do link { xfail } }
+// { dg-lto-options { { -flto -O2 } } }
+// { dg-extra-ld-options "-r -nostdlib -O2" }
+
+struct A { A () {} virtual ~A () {} };
+A a;
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr65361_1.C.jj 2015-03-09 16:43:45.981482330
+0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr65361_1.C 2015-03-09 16:39:00.000000000 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+struct B {};
+struct A : public B { A () {} virtual ~A () {} };
+A b;
reproduces this, but unfortunately lto.exp doesn't support link failures, nor
error messages out of lto1 during the linking. So I'm afraid we need to live
without a testcase for now.
BTW, I see several spots with __attribute__((visibility ("default"))) on std
namespace in g++.dg/lto/, bet that is undesirable if some target would support
LTO, but not visibilities.
