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 5B2693858031; Wed, 28 Jun 2023 15:49:40 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5B2693858031
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1687967380;
	bh=g2AVlmxVqZhTUsviSIXDLQWnItJtUcjfJWQ1Z8GkjTk=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Vs7ao58iPyQTbfbPu7huHVkoiLXRKUIuuDzyZm34oN11V0d7AMFL60qQVBPB8hSsK
	 XSHjz0CEuU7jXQDQYO2ZvVWK2aHii33oxTOaTSz90OeMsM5eADG1v6U794WCEQ1Gix
	 dgnRHMpurlxid58pC9CPynScPSTHSV3FfuragaB4=
From: "xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/109780] [12/13/14 Regression] csmith: runtime crash with
 -O2 -march=znver1
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2023 15:49:39 +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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-bisection, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: xry111 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: 12.4
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-109780-4-sI2JVQiZrc@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109780-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109780-4@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=3D109780

--- Comment #20 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #19)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #17)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #16)
> > > Created attachment 55409 [details]
> > > A patch
> > >=20
> > > I am stilling trying to find a small testcase.
> >=20
> > The patch triggers an ICE building Spidermonkey 115b9 (it segfaults wit=
h GCC
> > trunk because of some unaligned vmovdqa):
> >=20
> > 0x93297b ix86_finalize_stack_frame_flags
> > 	../../gcc/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc:8224
> > 0x162064c ix86_expand_epilogue(int)
> > 	../../gcc/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc:9405
> > 0x1b2e27f gen_epilogue()
> > 	../../gcc/gcc/config/i386/i386.md:17517
> > 0x160a815 target_gen_epilogue
> > 	../../gcc/gcc/config/i386/i386.md:17013
> > 0xf15e86 make_epilogue_seq
> > 	../../gcc/gcc/function.cc:5964
> > 0xf15f8b thread_prologue_and_epilogue_insns()
> > 	../../gcc/gcc/function.cc:6046
> > 0xf166c2 rest_of_handle_thread_prologue_and_epilogue
> > 	../../gcc/gcc/function.cc:6544
> > 0xf166c2 execute
> > 	../../gcc/gcc/function.cc:6625
> >=20
> > The code at i386.cc:8224 reads:
> >=20
> >   if (crtl->stack_realign_finalized)
> >     {
> >       /* After stack_realign_needed is finalized, we can't no longer
> >          change it.  */
> >       gcc_assert (crtl->stack_realign_needed =3D=3D stack_realign);
> >       return;
> >     }
> >=20
> > I'm not sure if the assert should be dropped or it's more difficult.
> >=20
> > Or can we just force to use unaligned vector moves for block operations
> > until we can find a better solution?  It's at least better than leaving=
 the
> > vectorized block moving broken and forcing people trying to disable the
> > feature.
>=20
> Do you have a testcase?

It's too large and I'm running cvise on it.=