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 E1B793852C47; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 19:58:35 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E1B793852C47
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1668715115;
	bh=9iQugB7BjJlnrNwFud2hJdTq7FywgAQ5jVxScy8QOak=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=oPa/1fH3mLvn7GYKM99EOOptoTg7WRNsOrIGMSHP2sgutBwlHVltedFRIdKPkRAfN
	 uiA+XzUpgw5LiLDAMQteXwhtmq4zPh/26xCb9SpQrx17h/EtFi34EPIlTbdhpRxt6L
	 QcotOv6Y1USyqO6aZxZuEZZbXNIl3bUNPgZVFjak=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/107736] call to a function, generated by inline asm, is off
 by one byte
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2022 19:58:35 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: inline-asm
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: INVALID
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-107736-4-zlHvloVx4O@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107736-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107736-4@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=3D107736

--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to mfarca from comment #4)
> Thanks for creating the issue for improving documentation.
>=20
> Could you then clarify if call to the incorrect address is a bug or not?
> instructions are allowed to be under `.rodata` section as this section is
> still executable and works fine on x64, more on this:
> https://stackoverflow.com/a/44938843

x64 does not have an alignment requirement for instructions while the other
targets do. That is all.

x64 does not have an alignment requirement because the instructions are all
different sizes including some single byte instructions.

This is an ISA difference really and not really a GCC question at this poin=
t.=