From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 7A12A3858C78; Sat, 5 Mar 2022 21:55:23 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 7A12A3858C78 From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/104777] [9/10/11/12 Regression] gcc crashes while compiling a custom coroutine library sample Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2022 21:55:23 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-optimization X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.2.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 9.5 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cf_known_to_fail assigned_to short_desc target_milestone cf_known_to_work Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2022 21:55:23 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D104777 Andrew Pinski changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Known to fail| |9.1.0, 9.4.0 Assignee|mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc d= ot gnu.org Summary|[10/11/12 Regression] gcc |[9/10/11/12 Regression] gcc |crashes while compiling a |crashes while compiling a |custom coroutine library |custom coroutine library |sample since |sample |r10-5137-g43aae289866f5ea5 | Target Milestone|10.4 |9.5 Known to work| |8.5.0 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- Here is a C testcase which shows this is a latent bug (derived from the gim= ple of the reduced testcase in comment #2): _Bool savestate_r; int savestate_ssb; extern void abort(); __thread struct { int t; int tt[1]; } loop; void f (const int * __functor) { _Bool savestate_r0_5; _Bool savestate_r1_6; __asm__("" : "=3Dm" (savestate_ssb), "=3Dr" (savestate_r)); savestate_r0_5 =3D savestate_r; if (savestate_r0_5 !=3D 0) goto bb3; else goto bb4; bb3: __asm__("" : "=3Dm" (savestate_ssb), "=3Dr" (savestate_r)); savestate_r1_6 =3D savestate_r; if (savestate_r1_6 !=3D 0) goto bb6; else goto bb5; bb4: __asm__ __volatile__("" : : "m" (loop)); abort (); bb5: __asm__ __volatile__("" : : "m" (loop)); abort (); bb6: return; }=