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 B3C9A3858C2D; Fri, 25 Mar 2022 12:53:41 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B3C9A3858C2D
From: "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/102772] [12 regression] g++.dg/torture/pr80334.C FAILs
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2022 12:53:41 +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: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: testsuite-fail, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-102772-4-x4V8Uj8tYu@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-102772-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-102772-4@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: Fri, 25 Mar 2022 12:53:41 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D102772

--- Comment #22 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot =
Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Note, for ntpoff the listed instructions are:
> movl %gs:0,%eax
> leal x@ntpoff(%eax),%eax
> rather than addl.  But certainly this one was never meant to be taken
> pedantically as that instruction sequence only, it is completely intentio=
nal
> that the %gs:0 load can be far away (used by multiple TLS LE or IE access=
es),
> and
> even tls.pdf mentions some other instructions:
> movl %gs:0,%eax
> movl x@ntpoff(%eax),%eax
> and
> movl %gs:x@ntpoff,%eax
> are all mentioned.

In the Solaris Linkers and Libraries Guide I'd mentioned, those forms
are all listed.  However, this wouldn't be the first case where the
registers in the spec were taken literally on Solaris: see i386.cc
(legitimize_tls_address) <TLS_MODEL_INITIAL_EXEC> and i386.md
(tls_initial_exec_64_sun) where Solaris only accepts %rax.=