From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 2B180399C02A; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 15:09:52 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2B180399C02A
From: "lucier at math dot purdue.edu" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/100152] Possible 10.3 bad code generation regression
 from 10.2/9.3 on Mac OS 10.15.7 (Catalina)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 15:09:52 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.3.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: lucier at math dot purdue.edu
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-100152-4-DY3P7YnMK0@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-100152-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-100152-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 15:09:52 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D100152

--- Comment #9 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #8)
> (In reply to lucier from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #6)
> >=20
> > > yes please - also the original source, if that's OK?
> >=20
> > It's highly macrofied C code with a lot of "includes"; is the .i file n=
ot
> > enough?
>=20
> enough for me to replicate the assembly produced, yes.
>=20
> would it be possible to set a breakpoint on the function itself and step
> through - the reported "invalid insn" seems odd, for sure.

I'll look into this---the way the program is called is not simple, it's a
Scheme->C compiler building a "module", so it's hidden behind a number of
scripts.

> the values of rbp. r10 and esi would be interesting too.

This is from the console crash report:

Thread 0 crashed with X86 Thread State (64-bit):
  rax: 0x00007fff924cfba8  rbx: 0x0000000000000001  rcx: 0x000000010e4bdf90=
=20
rdx: 0x000000010e4bdca0
  rdi: 0x00007ffee1c853a8  rsi: 0x000000000000002f  rbp: 0x00007fdf00595ec0=
=20
rsp: 0x00007ffee1c853a0
   r8: 0x0000000000000460   r9: 0x0000000000000466  r10: 0x00007fff924cfba9=
=20
r11: 0x000000010dfab920
  r12: 0x0000000000000042  r13: 0x00007ffee1c853f8  r14: 0x000000010e4bdca0=
=20
r15: 0x00000000000006d8
  rip: 0x000000010dfaf010  rfl: 0x0000000000010206  cr2: 0x000000010dfaea20=