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 393A13858D32; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 17:37:59 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 393A13858D32
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1678469879;
	bh=L0BexCHZVx96u8xZ+YEopXZqg/SbwZTGlnpe7KQ86sA=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=PNvVNum4Khfa1WSH2aQJZWrheLTnGiWDH7gVxm7uuTJQC4HQBPR1T+yrwmnWaxpky
	 iZjqDal+1Gu2L2Q8tsctLoCj1LiG0qZ204Tbl5yocrJ0oNlOOScAYAbOBvG5+SgaQn
	 xXl8UmVynZgnHFSNwfInZE3Vz+3tdR3dlRiqdDU4=
From: "tstellar at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/108994] [13 Regression] LLVM JIT segfaults in libgcc
 after upgrading from gcc 12.2.1 to 13.0.1 since r13-2706-g6e80a1d164d1f9
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 17:37:58 +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: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: tstellar at redhat dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
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-108994-4-bQoxatcXjM@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108994-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108994-4@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=3D108994

--- Comment #16 from Tom Stellard <tstellar at redhat dot com> ---
I looked into this a little more, and I think the s390x failures may be an =
LLVM
bug.  It's trying to JIT an X86 ELF file on s390x, and I think maybe the la=
yout
of the frames is different due to endianness.

I'm still not sure what's going on with the aarch64 failure, though.=