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 72941384AB54; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 06:53:32 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 72941384AB54
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1712818412;
	bh=V6yasLun9VCbOsFp1zkNN0NQAw7EfQPQMZF9FE64eMc=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=EK8ON/2ayU7XSzyJTGax7keJ5VxyK0kbzG30kl2YyUSc5JjCSoDlsCkFkCF+OJUhp
	 DlIIM6Jyr0vpaYTPAJtUrmEDowkhGYEm78pWTJBXzD5jM7iBbJkaScHAG5MeCLRA85
	 kl+nACEzBIa/NVAMg1dS6Qc8F1HMk5ddQyuH/dFc=
From: "liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/110027] [11/12/13/14 regression] Stack objects with
 extended alignments (vectors etc) misaligned on detect_stack_use_after_return
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 06:53:30 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.1.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-110027-4-pBMcbF6os4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-110027-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-110027-4@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=3D110027

--- Comment #19 from Hongtao Liu <liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #17)
> Both of the posted patches are incorrect, this needs to be fixed in
> asan_emit_stack_protection, account for the different offsets[0] which
> happens when a stack pointer guard is created.
> I'll deal with it tomorrow.

It seems to me that the only offend place is where I've modifed, are there
other places where align_frame_offset (ASAN_RED_ZONE_SIZE) is also added?

Also, your patch adds a gcc_assert for offset[0], which seems to me there w=
as
an assumption that offset[0] should be a multiple of alignb, thus making my
patch more reasonable?=