https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107931
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to ishikawa,chiaki from comment #14) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #13) > > (In reply to ishikawa,chiaki from comment #11) > > > What is exactly the compiler-defined macro when "-Og" is used on the > > > command > > > line? > > > > There is not one ... > > Thank you for the information. > I see we may have to create a protocol by creating a commonly used macro to > handle the situation. > > The bugzilla I created at mozilla is > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1817565 > > And the code seems to be a third party code and I was advised to report the > issue to the originating github also. > I will. > > Thank you again. > > PS: Given the manual description, it could be gcc-10 and gcc-11 may not have > inlined the functions, but the errors were not reported as such. Oh well. It is generally not possible to compute all indirect call sites to an always_inline function. It would be possible to simply disallow taking the address of an always_inline function but we rejected that based on the use of indirect calls to always_inline functions in the wild but instead opted to document that we do not really support this usage. A weaker option to never emit the body of an always_inline function out-of-line was rejected as well (you'd then a least get linker errors for missed [indirect] calls). We could opt to _not_ diagnose such missed inlines iff the function had its address taken at some point, but then you won't notice missed inlines of always-inline either.
