[Bug c/84229] A valid code rejected with -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84229 --- Comment #13 from Martin Liška --- Should be fixed on all active branches.

[Bug c/84229] A valid code rejected with -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84229 --- Comment #12 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Wed Mar 7 09:46:01 2018 New Revision: 258324 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258324&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Backport r257877 2018-03-07 Martin Liska Backport from mainl

[Bug c/84229] A valid code rejected with -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84229 --- Comment #11 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Tue Mar 6 20:04:36 2018 New Revision: 258290 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258290&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Backport r257877 2018-03-06 Martin Liska Backport from mainl

[Bug c/84229] A valid code rejected with -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84229 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 26 Feb 2018, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84229 > > --- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka --- > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8

[Bug c/84229] A valid code rejected with -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84229 --- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka --- > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84229 > > --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- > On Mon, 26 Feb 2018, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.

[Bug c/84229] A valid code rejected with -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84229 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 26 Feb 2018, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84229 > > --- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka --- > I am not sure it is really fixed. We no lon

[Bug c/84229] A valid code rejected with -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84229 --- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka --- I am not sure it is really fixed. We no longer ICE, howeverw we need backporting to release branches and also I think we miss fortification whenever we fail to inline (that is with -Os). I have some patches to

[Bug c/84229] A valid code rejected with -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84229 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Version|unknown

[Bug c/84229] A valid code rejected with -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84229 --- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka --- Author: hubicka Date: Wed Feb 21 19:05:30 2018 New Revision: 257877 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257877&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c/84229 * ipa-cp.c (determine_versionability): Do not v

[Bug c/84229] A valid code rejected with -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84229 --- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka --- For reference, this is open implementation from Jessie version of glibc that trigeers the issue __fortify_function int open (const char *__path, int __o

[Bug c/84229] A valid code rejected with -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84229 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug c/84229] A valid code rejected with -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84229 --- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka --- > Huh, __builtin_va_arg_pack_len is only valid within varargs functions. The > difference seems to be that without LTO we simply emit a library call and > not emit aa.i:open (which is invalid) but with LTO we

[Bug c/84229] A valid code rejected with -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84229 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid CC|