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 36A3A385841A; Mon, 13 Mar 2023 13:13:54 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 36A3A385841A
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1678713234;
	bh=iGnDr4ZGndzbXUpfjhGt9SJVbriLgwlsj3DvAu1O2PU=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=ZKQo4HjqvT95ENKJsR00Si13DmaGYkL16NiT2tmV/ztbRMKTc0linjcp0nCPAWEKL
	 18/Z51r0T1sTqWgNi7Ig3uVFuTDoQ4DKx+Wxuk1wWJFYkyYOrDjKoE3/nlhjz+2Qji
	 9gGI2+qXPVyKDiITGEBpzbdAEvZSbej81I0EiNKE=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/109093] [13 regression] csmith: a February runtime bug ?
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 13:13:53 +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: needs-reduction, 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: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: everconfirmed cf_reconfirmed_on bug_status
Message-ID: <bug-109093-4-fC6aflmElI@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109093-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109093-4@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=3D109093

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2023-03-13
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW

--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
#c3 looks very similarly, though have just looked at assembly:
        pushq   %rbp
.LCFI0:
        movl    $36, %r11d
        movl    $7, %eax
        vpxor   %xmm0, %xmm0, %xmm0
        movq    %rsp, %rbp
.LCFI1:
        pushq   %r15
        pushq   %r14
        pushq   %r13
        pushq   %r12
.LCFI2:
        movl    $127, %r13d
        pushq   %rbx
.LCFI3:
        leaq    -48(%rsp), %rsi
...
.L5:
        vmovdqa %xmm0, (%rsi)
so again, %rbp after movq %rsp, %rbp is correctly 16-byte aligned, then 5
registers are pushed, so (%rsp & 15) =3D=3D 8, %rsi is set to %rsp - 48 and=
 an
aligned store to that spot
segfaults because (%rsi & 15) =3D=3D 8.

And similarly #c4:
        pushq   %rbp
.LCFI0:
        movabsq $434041037028460038, %rax
        movq    %rsp, %rbp
.LCFI1:
        pushq   %rbx
.LCFI2:
        movq    %rax, -41(%rsp)
        movb    $6, -33(%rsp)
        cmpl    $-6, (%rdi)
        jne     .L84
        movl    $2, %r8d
        leaq    -32(%rsp), %rcx
...
        vmovdqa %xmm1, (%rcx)
        vmovdqa %xmm0, 16(%rcx)

H.J., could you please have a look?  Thanks.=