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 959BC385840F; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 21:01:10 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 959BC385840F
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1677186070;
	bh=3xhqNJKGN/PddwW74C15A9ONOmGQa+5I51cuGjPpcww=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=EW9+O+viXQTBBVOdMcpagc+qVY6AWKbw2ew+QAyRtm05bcHkQQDR1SjzyZkto+orm
	 ygdiGdLIsZhjkvCJ2QbtZ73oMkWARl9BBXPOMzYo0IbewBPkbLujtnlbf4HeRRbDzV
	 6rdqmTvpJOl+ALg/LmWubHzQWJF4Tlt2x5Ld3Qn4=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/108910] [13 Regression] Further ICE in
 aarch64_layout_arg
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 21:01:10 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-108910-4-Pg0PypFUdu@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108910-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108910-4@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=3D108910

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
What I don't understand is how the alignment of the function argument 64 by=
tes
aligned being taken into account here ...
The alignment of the argument type is still 4 byte aligned even because of =
the
declaration of foo.=