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 79ECC3858D33; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 07:38:32 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 79ECC3858D33
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1677137912;
	bh=FjddbuYyzZQCEkNqYqzjUa+vpivAD4r25d6NQrRuKrY=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=URE87lRkNijy2rF9lduGNDM5bWRAX9Oa0OkFk4JZEoS301MUoZvfh05As5ZRizwzV
	 9bILtPsVVOWn2RowNaU9lWxF7YCNOrdl4vhdjA3YFWyDIkDk7/ue8lLEfJ4rmlpnlj
	 z4zFMMqh6sTwtDql2NzSOYJUc/webBxtxoqyrnVU=
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 07:38:31 +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-b9nfmk4ABN@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 #7 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to ibuclaw from comment #6)
> There's r13-1113 with introduced the use of visible().
>=20
> Can't see anything odd about the virtual function declaration that would
> suggest there's a mismatch between C++/D.
>=20
> It does return a struct though.  Is there maybe something special done in
> the way structs are returned on 32-bit OSX that doesn't occur on 32-bit
> Linux?

Well, I can re-check (there _are_ some differences between x86 Darwin / Lin=
ux,
where x86_64 is supposed to be the same).

 - but is that not the province of the middle & back-ends?
   why would it make any difference what the FE language does?

> I could also just revert to accessing the underlying `->visibility` field
> directly, if it really is just that function call that's problematic.

We cannot really tell, since the build does not get beyond stage1 - so that
we're nowhere near running the testsuite.

This was on Darwin17, for reference - so the most modern supported 32b case=
.=