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 399633858C50; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 15:11:54 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 399633858C50
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1680102714;
	bh=5o0c9mvZjlw0Kzj85JmSDHH65rXCjOZKC0gDfBcbmoI=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=t50lgQr/yxN5Hxl/sxm+dnFKSXiGLJa51kL8cXdTiABKszR9EL2nVJfrx/q0+Prc0
	 PPZU4CFFi1ajc/zodVW7SNjGfZdKbOGgglh9EZfl8eg8MSKwQZ7S1GYffc9CrIv87r
	 6HaQERqubz24Cz/W4CRbduEyX1P8PbawrvsGDCe4=
From: "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug d/109231] [13 regression] Comparison failure in
 libphobos/libdruntime/rt/util/typeinfo.o
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 15:11:54 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: d
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: build
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ibuclaw at gdcproject dot org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-109231-4-ubLU6BIQ5x@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109231-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109231-4@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=3D109231

--- Comment #26 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot =
Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> (In reply to ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE from comment #24)
>> > --- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
>> [...]
>> So far, I've tried both variants and in each case, the comparison
>> failure is gone.
>
> Given that the reproducers weren't reliable, I'm afraid it would take at =
least
> 2-3
> runs to get something that says something.

indeed, even though so far following the exact same procedure has always
failed (or succeeded) in the same way.

> Anyway, as I said for the second version, it would be nice to also try
> subvariants:
[...]
> so see if the comparison failure is fixed by the result relayout, or by
> argument
> relayout or by the aggregate_value_p call actually having some side-effec=
ts
> other than return value.

I certainly plan to do so once the machine is idle again, probably tomorrow=
.=