From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 86E4B3858D3C; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 01:20:34 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 86E4B3858D3C DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1677115234; bh=pczE8aIbq036DgC/F+nupmRLobT3Ls6rYI6Dc6fuiq4=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ofaXymRYtrT0DzDg88v3csGXqyvADBVwB1P3iUIbnir3HP5aEAIsstcr5YQGfNrj5 Tk0XlFSEzaoFXiJrBRCn2J9Az8z+X8PDGRmAjS/2CrI01hHoJDsx0jjT0+Y4CwRMHf B+pyla/fm/76rqSN33xEnsnHzBWZppykRb4jSKB4= From: "ibuclaw at gcc dot 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 01:20:33 +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: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106977 ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6 from ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org --- There's r13-1113 with introduced the use of visible(). Can't see anything odd about the virtual function declaration that would suggest there's a mismatch between C++/D. It does return a struct though. Is there maybe something special done in t= he way structs are returned on 32-bit OSX that doesn't occur on 32-bit Linux? I could also just revert to accessing the underlying `->visibility` field directly, if it really is just that function call that's problematic.=