From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id C90753858C66; Tue, 14 Mar 2023 19:13:56 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C90753858C66 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1678821236; bh=8OB+DA2amjhHp4nbf8IysCpYp0kJtYmPsAmKifWSmdk=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=q4qMTYzAAJ78j6nMPlu5r0drsUT72M/gXlHIfNTGYvYs06L+s6Upj/NVqwEKXmddM 0uHjwLWEOny0ItjesTA/tpFbwKRBiHDRAv4cpxMiShINjQdYpzgGT5ffLc5RjZgiAu orXcrtbuJAoeuJTJs3OVNvVYKO8YXWQixXHJiw2U= From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/109093] [13 regression] csmith: a February runtime bug ? Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2023 19:13:56 +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: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub 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: 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=3D109093 --- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek --- I assume if calls are present this is no longer a problem (so say hiding accesses from taking of address through some function call or doing accesses in the call = is safe). But, one could e.g. use inline asm to hide it, have __m128 x; __m128 *p =3D= &x; asm ("" : "+r" (p)); *p =3D 0; etc.?=