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 3B11C3857C45; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 20:07:54 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 3B11C3857C45
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1677269274;
	bh=i2UnhhX0owU4ppCgSTuSkP50PaSILL29eI6FcH6mMc4=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=iorUbRYYi/KXsczAeGVVYIWADAF2g+VhlAa70G1Au0R3JSmYIHqPnUOxwS3+Zwpji
	 +Dlhcp+y9c5LVXxlVyStUHN0XAb9HTPGeKI+BKM+zwu/31taRyO7HvJSc9A6X7PbpE
	 AopaZprMCHkq7h8Dd83VvswwnyGDHokN12sYx5/M=
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: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 20:07:53 +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-XWVpROVIdu@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 #30 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to ibuclaw from comment #29)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #27)
> > great!
> >=20
> > we make more progress now - at least past libphobos configure:
> >=20
> > we now fail building druntime/core/atomic.d and I am not quite sure how=
 to
> > interpret the backtrace (from b internal_error).
> >
> > d21`_D3dmd6access17checkSymbolAccessFPSQBh6dscope5ScopeCQBy7dsymbol7Dsy=
mbolZb
> > (sc=3D<unavailable>, s=3D<unavailable>) at access.d:296
> >
> My fear is that now it's corrupting the return in other ways now, this ti=
me
> within D itself.

I see.. that might be the tricky aspect of trying to have a different ABI
internally and for accessing C/C++.  Not sure how to solve it (are functions
with C-family interfaces marked as such?)=