[Bug ipa/85656] gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-icf-38.c FAILs

[marxin at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85656

Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |WAITING

--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE from comment #5)
> > --- Comment #4 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> [...]
> > According to log file alias support is mission on solaris. Thus following patch
> > should fix that by skipping the test:
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-icf-38.c
> > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-icf-38.c
> > index 85531ab1cf3..45525844551 100644
> > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-icf-38.c
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-icf-38.c
> > @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
> >  /* { dg-do link } */
> > +/* { dg-require-alias "" } */
> >  /* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-ipa-icf -flto -fdump-tree-fixup_cfg4" } */
> >  /* { dg-require-effective-target lto } */
> >  /* { dg-additional-sources "ipa-icf-38a.c" }*/
> >
> > Can you please verify that?
> 
> The patch doesn't make a difference as Solaris *does* support attribute
> alias, even when using as and ld.  However, I noticed that the
> unmodified test PASSes when using gas/gld instead, so there is a
> toolchain difference that causes this failure.

So can you please debug why we go into following branch:
  1277        if (!create_wrapper
  1278            && !alias->call_for_symbol_and_aliases
(cgraph_node::has_thunk_p,
  1279                                                    NULL, true)
  1280            && !alias->can_remove_if_no_direct_calls_p ())
  1281          {
  1282            if (dump_file)
  1283              fprintf (dump_file, "Not unifying; can not make wrapper and
"
  1284                       "function has other uses than direct calls\n\n");
  1285            return false;
  1286          }

I'm curious why can_remove_if_no_direct_calls_p returns false.