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 F2C1838558B7; Tue, 30 May 2023 07:45:36 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org F2C1838558B7
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1685432736;
	bh=yRLBFhI1SdzJgUOVhgKu8fe+BfXhPEVk6kIl8TxibYk=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=uYEzdYuTLJfJEwo5zKpgwPb2cQfrNTG4gu9Hdro/PV5HDuls/ceDsWja5Sthmq9Qm
	 bpzDwzHBzQikRCLHKjlxiUHn4AmHBwXDzO+z8HHkUYmwx08RuscGOgyBePKs8BLJ1L
	 RjpMjwu+2dB5gZgq8uvcYmCAqeu5meIzjRN2XkVo=
From: "amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/109982] csmith: x86_64: znver1 issues
Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 07:45:36 +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: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-109982-4-U0e6JEEuFE@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109982-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109982-4@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=3D109982

--- Comment #13 from Alexander Monakov <amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
No, neither for fields nor for the complete object:

struct
__attribute__((aligned(64)))
S {
    int i;
};

void f()
{
    struct S s __attribute__((aligned(1))), *p =3D &s;
    int *q =3D &s.i;
    asm("" :: "r"(p), "r"(q));
}

We have -Waddress-of-packed-member, which doesn't apply here.

But that said, even if we did, it was possible to miss the warning, because=
 the
testcase emits hundreds of them and there was '-w' in the initial report.
David, did you somehow configure CSmith to emit attributes it wouldn't emit=
 by
default? Emitting random attributes makes sense for testing error recovery =
(gcc
shouldn't ICE on nonsensical attribute combinations), but less so for check=
ing
correctness of generated code, as we see here.=