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 DC106385840A; Wed,  6 Sep 2023 18:19:43 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org DC106385840A
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1694024383;
	bh=j2qJZ0U31rJl7KAV7w+wHk0rBdYmiOMHj1ZA204hKfA=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=FkNd8TGzpSNsDhU9LkmAPhsp4WXJ9r53lymO//GwBoOk44lJYYLbfSxNSv4CE62s8
	 VUD8TRgU846rKvPUBGGRi5R3NIeeM73DEPK/zwBmmqHPZ8h88YO5JepV+zzfk0/hEr
	 Sy8NQ0TIjYjqGlLz8KImV4MxYE3THElFMEeIGbYo=
From: "rs2740 at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/111050] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ABI break in
 _Hash_node_value_base since GCC 11
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2023 18:19:43 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ABI
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rs2740 at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-111050-4-twEtPpIav6@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-111050-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-111050-4@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=3D111050

--- Comment #6 from TC <rs2740 at gmail dot com> ---
The crash is gone if lib2.o is compiled with bits/hashtable_policy.h patched
like so:

--- a/path/to/gcc-13/include/c++/13.2.0/bits/hashtable_policy.h
+++ b/hashtable_policy.h
@@ -327,18 +327,22 @@ namespace __detail

       __gnu_cxx::__aligned_buffer<_Value> _M_storage;

+      [[__gnu__::__always_inline__]]
       _Value*
       _M_valptr() noexcept
       { return _M_storage._M_ptr(); }

+      [[__gnu__::__always_inline__]]
       const _Value*
       _M_valptr() const noexcept
       { return _M_storage._M_ptr(); }

+      [[__gnu__::__always_inline__]]
       _Value&
       _M_v() noexcept
       { return *_M_valptr(); }

+      [[__gnu__::__always_inline__]]
       const _Value&
       _M_v() const noexcept
       { return *_M_valptr(); }

I'm following up with my reporter to see if this also fixes the problem with
their actual code.=