From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-342894-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 20044 invoked by alias); 9 Jan 2011 18:06:42 -0000
Received: (qmail 20028 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jan 2011 18:06:41 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.6 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FSL_RU_URL,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from ksp.mff.cuni.cz (HELO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz) (195.113.26.206)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 09 Jan 2011 18:06:37 +0000
Received: by atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz (Postfix, from userid 4018)	id C5F81F014B; Sun,  9 Jan 2011 19:06:35 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2011 18:11:00 -0000
From: Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz>
To: "hjl.tools at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [Bug lto/47222] [4.6 Regression] Revision 168593 failed many	tests
Message-ID: <20110109180635.GD18136@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
References: <bug-47222-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> <bug-47222-4-PgQMj1Glzw@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <bug-47222-4-PgQMj1Glzw@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-01/txt/msg00833.txt.bz2

> 
> Run-time abort.  Please check 32bit.
OK, these reproduce to me. Adding "staitic" into the testcase as follows:

/* PR middle-end/12210 */
/* Origin: Ossadchy Yury A. <waspcoder@mail.ru> */

/* This used to fail on i686 because the argument was not copied
   to the right location by __builtin_apply after the direct call.  */

/* { dg-do run } */

#define INTEGER_ARG  5

extern void abort(void);

static void foo(int arg)
{
  if (arg != INTEGER_ARG)
    abort();
}

static void bar(int arg)
{
  foo(arg);
  __builtin_apply(foo, __builtin_apply_args(), 16);
}

int main(void)
{
  bar(INTEGER_ARG);

  return 0;
}

make it fail too, so it is pre-existing wrong code.  I am looking into what gets wrong.

Honza