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 7B1133851C03; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 18:39:59 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 7B1133851C03
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1677263999;
	bh=+WsQgCVSCZVk8Y5H7Y9nu8aUkXyj6AA3GucsokCreWA=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=OYUmbQ9iL2WxQHbVT5He5RWZ3bp0JMdKEPPxPS5p4kUY+Kpg0UDNgoyJGeOLAkU/u
	 GWlUJAsiD99P38W1fT7ekHWjX4ESbznjeePpPjfF4wd4hHxWlkMJSsj/2Mm2KZGh5t
	 PLNRTNctjOZwVg7lkbL21MlZ8/5T4YyJvwYS6b8w=
From: "ibuclaw 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 18:39:59 +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: ibuclaw 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-fI7SXNoK9U@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 #29 from ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(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`_D3dmd6access17checkSymbolAccessFPSQBh6dscope5ScopeCQBy7dsymbol7Dsymb=
olZb
> (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 time
within D itself.

access.d:296: final switch (s.visible().kind)=