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 6D429385842B; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 23:34:32 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6D429385842B
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1677195272;
	bh=Ubl00XFX71nLJovCPQyRzp61x8sd8JPjHRoj9q59V7Y=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=WtrzceKsYL9So9/66VePuhQfjTQvqqi2dbkAznrTGmKdNuaiW8gEm6tqCYclqneYP
	 +1s8uT7Af9+X4vq70rNfYrp1xPOxEF9zRqbfZUbZYMptzB1QiCd4zCsFjzsX++yOhq
	 BlGUHIkpIjZ26Tf4pYpoWtMAeLeIppmRsMPFI/gQ=
From: "iains at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug d/106977] [13 regression] d21 dies with SIGBUS on 32-bit Darwin
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 23:34:32 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: d
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: iains at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ibuclaw at gdcproject dot org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-106977-4-8UaQFhNWO4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106977-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106977-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106977

--- Comment #16 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #14)
> (In reply to ibuclaw from comment #13)

> If the caller is passing two regs it seems to me likely that (for some
> reason it thinks that the value is returned via an sret pointer).
>=20
> The callee then get s the set pointer in the register it is expecting *th=
is
> to be in... and boom .. we are broken at some point,
>=20
> So it would seem that we might want to find a reproducer that we can look=
 at
> the various tree dumps and see if/where an sret is introduced?
>=20
> (if that's not the cause, then we'll have to find a new hypothesis)

oops I misread the D callee asm .. it looks like the D callee is expecting =
an
sret.

So ISTM that somehow D is not getting the right answer to "does this ABI pa=
ss
by sret for this size of struct"?=