From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 044C13858D1E; Mon, 13 Mar 2023 16:43:53 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 044C13858D1E DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1678725834; bh=3ayBR9zQRNyxemcINH/HKio1G7nhCaYm0lXTsWUqYCM=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=E0TplzX8VNKjj0KOWww1e7wyE1R1W452TB9lUvUSFRiseS4HILE2t7xgXQ5qofUNB 7LsojuN3cdDLjkQmwhz3UqoQRQ54xYLyd9RiLbEj1hvf3lHKlxTP/Ok4TiuocuJL/5 Asw4/WsPvfsAtcVz8e0IVfw5/FHWMiGl8lwR69No= From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/109109] [13 Regression] mariadb fails in tests on i586 (non-LTO mode) after r13-4435-g2c089640279614e3 Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 16:43:52 +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: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 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: 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=3D109109 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Without an actual self-contained reproducer hard to guess. The above mentioned change changes the content of _ZN9page_id_tC2Ejj _Z22trx_undo_get_first_recRK11fil_space_tjtjRPK11buf_block_tP5mtr_tP7dberr_t _ZN5trx_t9apply_logEv _Z17trx_undo_add_pageP10trx_undo_tP5mtr_tP7dberr_t _ZL18trx_undo_free_pageP10trx_rseg_tbjjP5mtr_tP7dberr_t functions from what I can see, so which one of these it is? Another possible way to narrow it down a little bit would be to undo the i386.md hunks from that commit one by one and see which one it is, all the 4 changes are optimizations and all of them are independent of each other (an= y of them dependent on the i386-expand.cc change which shouldn't change anything= on its own). If you narrow it down to one function, then I guess we need to turn it into= a self-contained reproducer, add dummy wrapper which calls that function from main with the right arguments and supply dummy callees for the function for functions which aren't inlined.=