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 84F273858D33; Wed,  9 Aug 2023 11:53:29 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 84F273858D33
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1691582009;
	bh=5iMFjw/f9M0+Kpyt4G3/HiapwEzFibBvAmLjEgnQJyY=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=RQUQLCsjgggAvj7oWdcGR+aVXlOyn5f6BTfpOByunTITpoHxhW3BY43KS99v++JID
	 Ac8dkRuIihpP7sbFKEh6/GSht+NdJXGJ3160jnGL0PJ43VN7IQOdXVnrycJ+mpNWb7
	 TWkW9M99TO+Z3dTQgT6DW8KG7X91O5bt4aLW1hCU=
From: "ro at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libgcc/110955] SIGSEGV in
 libgcc_s.so.1`classify_object_over_fdes+0x140 on Solaris SPARC with GCC 13
 runtime
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2023 11:53:29 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libgcc
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ro 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-110955-4-knT564T5BD@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-110955-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-110955-4@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=3D110955

--- Comment #6 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #5)

> > There was a similar issue on aarch64 too; PR 108994 which was fixed in =
LLVM
> > side.
>=20
> It looks similar indeed.  However, AFAICS the LLVM JIT code has been
> reorganized
> quite a bit since my last attempt to get the SPARC code in.  Seems like q=
uite
> an amount of work to even get there...

Looking closer, that's a different JIT engine: aarch64 uses the newer JITLi=
nk
one while the sparc code is based on MCJIT/RuntimeDyld.=