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 F2AE53858C00; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 10:51:40 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org F2AE53858C00
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1677149500;
	bh=tdTN4Ae5xz3776/AmsAoWLy7MkVbFGs6EIfSWZgrFyc=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=qoWVIL58zjJLd1I3RihrA8mcZTCS3dMYPPlKBZcParhwvH3ulFBIXj2zBZLExtEWM
	 Rlpd7VDrfO5Ixl7icVrSt90s5IGhlMW5Xbr7HBNPfoD6yOEsh407nPiQADuKo9E2t/
	 b3sZM0RIMSEgAiQtdmMMkxd/qjnJ/qyxpDw9qOiE=
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 10:51:40 +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-XvXgexNgqV@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 #11 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to ibuclaw from comment #9)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #8)
> > +
> > +/* NODE is a FUNCTION_DECL, VAR_DECL or RECORD_TYPE for the declaratio=
n SYM.
> > +   Set flags to reflect visibility that NODE will get in the object fi=
le.=20
> > */
> > +
> > +void
> > +set_visibility_for_decl (tree node, Dsymbol *sym)
> >=20
> > hmmm.. should the call be "set_visibility_for_decl (decl, decl->csym); ?
> >=20
> > or should the signature of set_visibility_for_decl() be
> > set_visibility_for_decl (Dsymbol *sym, tree node)?
> >=20
> > or maybe I misread the comment....
> I might be unclear, first parameter (NODE) is a tree *_DECL representation
> for the second parameters (SYM) that is the associated front-end symbol.

yeah but the definition of set_visibility_for_decl() is:
+void
+set_visibility_for_decl (tree node, Dsymbol *sym)

which seems to be the opposite order (so if that's intended ... then the
comment definitely needs to distinguish between D nodes and other cases)=