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 2FA703858D35; Mon, 26 Jun 2023 04:21:01 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2FA703858D35
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1687753261;
	bh=qvnxfqkPfu3RxsMdFHwL3LaccsQjBwDh2PGRY3JyIqg=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=XsMjwZgAPEpdMwzTaX2BFHp8/g5G03gkz6o/dDINd0wIfpPLzNzmlJtQnwFkbVcMb
	 W4BteraB2EnLJs5UVP+4cLv/gzBlw2LXir06PWejTvugBILbqz6z2dozyBbS9lpFuv
	 YO/lMcSxXyAetpdMmuiCrTGfVYymzMjnPuuWfHTw=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/110406] d: Wrong code-gen returning POD structs by value
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 04:21:00 +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: 13.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia 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: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-110406-4-k2oJe0IDax@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-110406-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-110406-4@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=3D110406

--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to ibuclaw from comment #3)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > >structs have been set the wrong mode
> >=20
> > No, they don't have wrong mode, just the x86_64 backend is broken, see =
bug
> > 102027 comment #7 specifically.
> I think they do.
>=20
> On 64-bit,  I expect the mode set by compute_record_mode to be TImode.=20
> However what I'm instead seeing is BLKmode. This tells me I might be call=
ing
> it too early, and some fields yet to have their DECL_SIZE set.

Unless the struct has the alignment of TImode, it should be BLKmode ...=