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 4E8F4385842B; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 23:36:00 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4E8F4385842B
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1677195360;
	bh=xtcvT1MJLjyNlCZTXDzdFw+4x5ZCRMSpBdQ2ptC0NtY=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=FLUenu52HxzeodwgJ+eMhK1gwyP3Y8HqKBSpWr+elDLpap0bezKe9fuli2GCNq1hI
	 f6QrO0F2f3dZDE08cLt5L5kUuPm4ewpxMY6zSaVCLiiNvXFTm2ZXKxx6BlQUOdeo2Y
	 6POlcq26deR9ym8lfPo997xNU6HJ2h9AsngKiQI8=
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 23:36:00 +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-r6dODfFDhS@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 #17 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(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 lo=
ok 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 n=
ot
> 100% sure ...)

I think the visibility type is POD (assuming D has that concept)

struct Visibility
{
   enum Kind
   {
       undefined,
       none,           // no access
       private_,
       package_,
       protected_,
       public_,
       export_
   };
   Kind kind;
   void *pkg;
};=