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 464B738708C7; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 11:32:31 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 464B738708C7
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1702639951;
	bh=ZxX9ZccbLmJ6Wv1rDOS7cfvEJrYGgiLHJg64VFmwpwU=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=rbW1VM/QffJkgPutnhps1PaYjLhOXU9UB1KNO7C9juOwUms0gximJwMQIdccqDBsd
	 b3CYRsv3yo7V3SJtXNRsYyiDIpYJxt3FJ3O4z0Ld0aSRF0G4V2osqaDje7kM6HPWJ5
	 Bq6ni9NMPdJ9O5YTGuf8woLyldZNBH7rBTqgYX0Y=
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/111591] ppc64be: miscompilation with -mstrict-align /
 -O3
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 11:32:30 +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: 13.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-bisection
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED
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-111591-4-UCU2dpIVqb@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-111591-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-111591-4@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=3D111591

--- Comment #41 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Mathieu Malaterre from comment #40)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #39)
> > (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #38)
> > > I found this has been marked as resolved but it seems that the patch =
in
> > > comment #34 hasn't been pushed, is it intended? or did I miss somethi=
ng that
> > > one commit was pushed but wasn't associated to this PR?
> >=20
> > Yes, that was intended - the patch is not necessary, there's no bug on =
the
> > TBAA side.  I understand that highway itself is now fine (for whatever
> > reason) and
> > the reduced testcase invokes undefined behavior.
>=20
> Could someone confirm that patch in c30 is merged (commit id would be
> nice!), since it solve the other test case ? Thanks

No it's not merged, it's basically the same as the comment#34 one and shoul=
dn't
be needed (but it might cause another unidentified issue to become latent).

What's the "other" testcase?  Do we know that doesn't suffer from the same
uninitialized issue?=