public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/102772] [12 regression] g++.dg/torture/pr80334.C FAILs
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 14:11:35 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-102772-4-BPYfzh1Uvt@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-102772-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102772

--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
If it is the linker, you can always objdump -dr the binary to see what is in
there after linking. s@ntpoff in my understanding is a relocation that should
supply at link time the offset from the TLS base and at least on the GCC side
it can appear anywhere where 32-bit immediate appears in an instruction (or in
data section too), not necessarily in addl imm, %eax instruction.
Perhaps also try to have 2 different functions, one with
        movl    %gs:0, %eax
        addl    $s@ntpoff, %eax
        ret
and another with
        pushl   %ebx
        movl    %gs:0, %ebx
        addl    $s@ntpoff, %ebx
        popl    %ebx
        ret
and see what they do at runtime (if they both print the same address in each
thread or not).

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-03-23 14:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-10-15 11:39 [Bug target/102772] New: " ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-15 11:40 ` [Bug target/102772] " ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-15 11:40 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-15 11:40 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-15 12:06 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2021-10-15 13:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-15 14:29 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2021-10-15 20:44 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2021-11-16 11:51 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-23 12:36 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-17 15:05 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-17 15:14 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2022-03-21 11:44 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-21 12:01 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2022-03-21 12:03 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-21 12:03 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-21 13:17 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-21 13:31 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-22 15:12 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2022-03-22 17:00 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-23 13:56 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2022-03-23 14:11 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2022-03-23 14:17 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-25 12:48 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2022-03-25 12:53 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2022-03-25 12:54 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-25 13:00 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2022-03-25 13:06 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-25 13:13 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2022-03-25 13:18 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-25 13:22 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-25 13:49 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-30 14:06 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-30 14:45 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-30 14:52 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-30 14:56 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-30 15:04 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-30 15:13 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-30 15:23 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-31 13:46 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2022-03-31 13:47 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-31 14:16 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-31 14:18 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-31 14:49 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-31 15:15 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-31 15:47 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-04 11:54 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-11  9:13 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-11 14:19 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2022-04-11 14:19 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2022-04-11 15:29 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-12  7:53 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-13 14:47 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2022-05-06  8:31 ` [Bug target/102772] [12/13 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-08 12:22 ` [Bug target/102772] [12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-102772-4-BPYfzh1Uvt@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).