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 726F8385842B; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 23:55:51 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 726F8385842B
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1677196551;
	bh=XdVBdN7BnFB0xtGHPG9s5XDFzL7chxJcI5l/n5tigMs=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=bsqi+Fvp0uqg+Rhx47B3JzDAFremNYNiE1PZu2GS8euioqO+pP1HXl5hu+46MNOky
	 QPQ00i/aPQfeXVH2JJhEZHq3A4807bI7BA/OLpC+BhAdUxVkMICOsYi7246fzol8h+
	 6rnP4Jzs+yMwLTMnhI3TMbBf5N307FJNAIrQq5Tg=
From: "pinskia 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 23:55:51 +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: pinskia 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-DEMrpiLtJQ@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 #18 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #17)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15)
> > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #14)
> > > 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)
> >=20
> > POD vs non-POD (I think TYPE_ADDRESSABLE causes the difference but I am=
 not
> > 100% sure ...)
>=20
> I think the visibility type is POD (assuming D has that concept)

Something is TREE_ADDRESSABLE on the D Visibility  type ...

This is the mismatch that is happening.=