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 BF0823858004; Mon, 27 Nov 2023 16:57:42 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BF0823858004
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1701104262;
	bh=blgI993xpmVpnDuVvmQ+sBKG8LkJgR3LXl0ymhZ86Hw=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=GZSvnGeQSe97Bgg2oQm8lnLs5MeDFURgNBsiqjEQELg0ZYbI8yL6gUJ2wz0JoQrqg
	 7J1JLjrALEprXQnA8CxY2eFpVXFe0bt8EFnKmLgR90XFaF6492eHtPMswqGmK4OSR4
	 aXeHBEJc+dCo1SSYsC2b2Toun7Om/wulA5yQv9n4=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug bootstrap/111601] [14 Regression] profilebootstrap fails in
 stagestrain in libcody on x86_64-linux-gnu and powerpc64le-linux-gnu
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2023 16:57:40 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: bootstrap
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: build, ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-111601-4-37N6s6f9G2@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-111601-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-111601-4@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=3D111601

--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
When using current trunk (r14-5889), I can see it even in x86_64-linux ->
powerpc64le-linux cross-compiler.
diff -U300 pr111601.s{1,2}
will show
        std 9,0(10)
        mr 10,9
+       addi 10,10,96
        li 26,0
-       li 28,0
        ld 7,.LANCHOR0+136@toc@l(11)
+       li 28,0
        addi 6,6,1
        addi 12,12,1
        addi 7,7,1
        ld 9,96(9)
        std 7,.LANCHOR0+136@toc@l(11)
        li 11,0
        li 7,1
        std 9,0(8)
-       std 11,96(10)
+       std 11,0(10)
        stb 7,0(5)
-       ori 2,2,0
        ld 9,0(8)
        cmpdi 0,9,0
        bne 0,.L104
        .p2align 4,,15
and earlier
 .L104:
        lwz 7,104(9)
        li 11,1
        li 29,1
        cmpwi 0,7,1
        b .L54
and even earlier
 .L54:
        beq 0,.L48
and
 .L48:
        std 9,0(10)
        mr 10,9
        li 11,0
+       addi 10,10,96
        li 7,1
        addi 6,6,1
        addi 12,12,1
        ld 9,96(9)
        std 9,0(8)
-       std 11,96(10)
+       std 11,0(10)
which is where the r10 value which with -fno-fold-mem-offsets was modified =
with
the 96 addend and with -ffold-mem-offsets no longer is is used without on t=
he
std 9,0(10) store and because that store wasn't adjusted, it stores into
incorrect spot.=