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: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 13:17:50 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-102772-4-ByR7K7hyQT@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 #14 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
If the movaps that it fails on are:
        movaps  %xmm1, thr.1@ntpoff(%ebx)
        movdqu  16(%eax), %xmm2
        movaps  %xmm2, thr.1@ntpoff+16(%ebx)
then I'd say it must be some Solaris bug, because:
        .section        .tbss,"awT",@nobits
        .align 16
        .type   thr.1, @object
        .size   thr.1, 36
thr.1:
        .zero   36
so thr.1 symbol should be 16-byte aligned and so movaps to that address should
work.
On pointer2.o, is the .tbss section properly 16-byte aligned?
On i686-linux I see in readelf -Wa:
  [ 8] .tbss             NOBITS          00000000 000360 000024 00 WAT  0   0
16
What about the executable (in that case the PT_TLS segment is more important
(whether it has 16-byte p_align).
If Solaris dynamic linker doesn't ensure proper alignment of TLS vars (or
assembler or linker screw it up in the middle), it would be nice to find out if
it does for all alignments or just say higher than 8-byte, and perhaps add some
workaround on the GCC side somewhere.
On the pointer2.f90 testcase it is symtab_node::can_increase_alignment_p that
decides if the alignment of the var can be done, so perhaps we'd need a target
hook that for Solaris would say that one can't increase alignment of TLS vars.
But the question is if in
struct __attribute__((aligned (32))) S { long long buf[4]; };
__thread struct S s;
S *foo (void) { return &s; }
it won't return not properly 32-byte aligned pointer too (and is that in all
threads or just some (initial vs. other threads)?

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-03-21 13:17 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 [this message]
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
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-ByR7K7hyQT@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).