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 08E553858D32; Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:42:37 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 08E553858D32
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1674495757;
	bh=tOaY7IaesbBb0pRHFdSGeR3UNH8ekm5oOHFTmZR6xpQ=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Gr3MOJW+SEglfwCnYlC9dotCyyPjp71ZPVVbjIDlLcrvWaH9C+XLU8kj9MgxGrO+k
	 TG79ZiWZHxySMiW8bvQF/cyaybvwM02AJycTQGJB7tTdDbUV2gfkw13oXdMfCMYfZz
	 V3at1bck/7omJbYTrCOlZfBuTPBo/uLwa3v35+To=
From: "kungfujesus06 at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/108498] ppc64 big endian generates uninitialized
 reads with -fstore-merging
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:42:36 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: kungfujesus06 at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
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-108498-4-nMePtcMmJH@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108498-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108498-4@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=3D108498

--- Comment #11 from Adam Stylinski <kungfujesus06 at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> The only thing is memcpy could be broken ...
>=20
> I can't find anything wrong with the generated code.
>=20
>=20
>     100007cc:	38 a0 00 44 	li      r5,68
> ...
>     100007d8:	3c 00 02 00 	lis     r0,512
>     100007dc:	60 00 ff 03 	ori     r0,r0,65283
>     100007e0:	78 00 07 c6 	sldi    r0,r0,32
>     100007e4:	64 00 00 01 	oris    r0,r0,1
>     100007e8:	60 00 02 03 	ori     r0,r0,515
> ...
>     100007fc:	38 81 00 74 	addi    r4,r1,116
> ...
>     1000080c:	7c 7f 1b 78 	mr      r31,r3
> ...
>     10000818:	f8 01 00 74 	std     r0,116(r1)
> ...
>     1000082c:	4b ff fd 15 	bl      10000540
> <0000003b.plt_call.memcpy@@GLIBC_2.3>
> ...
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On the main side:
>         addi %r3,%r1,116
>         ld %r9,-28688(%r13)
>         std %r9,184(%r1)
>         li %r9,0
>         bl emit_test
>         lwz %r4,124(%r1)

It's possible's a glibc bug and clang avoids it by simply not needing it bu=
t it
seems doubtful a small memcpy like this would have an issue that didn't sho=
w up
until now.  It seems like if it did need a memcpy, GCC would invoke it's
builtin for a struct like like this rather than call into a library functio=
n.=20
Is there a compilation flag I can invoke to rule that out?  Like some sort =
of
"only builtins"?=