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 8266F385801B; Fri, 25 Mar 2022 13:13:32 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 8266F385801B
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 13:13:32 +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-x7psSCmKQ1@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 13:13:32 -0000

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

--- Comment #26 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot =
Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Ah, sorry, my fault apparently.
>         pushl   %ebx
>         movl    %gs:0, %ebx
>         addl    $s@ntpoff, %ebx
>         popl    %ebx
>         ret

I messed this up myself: didn't thing apparently ;-)

> of course doesn't make sense, because when it is a function, it should re=
turn
> the value in %eax, while the above computes something into %ebx and overw=
rites
> it and then just returns an uninitialized reg.
> So we need:
>         pushl   %ebx
>         movl    %gs:0, %ebx
>         addl    $s@ntpoff, %ebx
>         movl    %ebx, %eax
>         popl    %ebx
>         ret

With that change, foo () and foob () always return the same result.=