https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113341
--- Comment #11 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de> --- (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #10) > (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #9) > > Since it's a breakage during stage2, it's concluded that some built stage1 > > stuffs behave unexpectedly. You probably can try to run regression testing > > just with stage1 compiler to see if there is any regression exposed. > > > > If without any luck, then you probably have to isolate into one or several > > object files, since you have "objects" for "good" and "bad" stage1 compiler, > > you can be able to isolate some in between further. Once you get some > > isolated, you can probably get some hints it's a bug in LLVM source or gcc. > > Thanks. This sounds like a good idea. I will try to identify the object > files that differ. First result of the comparison is that Clang and GCC are building with different flags: Clang-only flags: -Werror=unguarded-availability-new -Wc++98-compat-extra-semi -Wcovered-switch-default -Wnon-virtual-dtor -Wstring-conversion -Wmisleading-indentation GCC-only flags: -fno-lifetime-dse -Wno-missing-field-initializers -Wno-maybe-uninitialized -Wno-nonnull -Wno-class-memaccess -Wno-redundant-move -Wno-pessimizing-move -Wno-comment -Wno-misleading-indentation I'll upload the build results later to my cloud space if anyone wants to help debug as the diff between the two build folders is rather big.
