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 095733858C60; Sun, 24 Dec 2023 00:34:14 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 095733858C60
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1703378055;
	bh=cvVuN35wwhEVSn8+9IZhtFX9wCSDyUrLWyLfN4xWXyg=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=bYSmJzWp0hUVIdhtfySX8GAE2AlLaN2RFFG46bXLc7Hx6q961sYU2W6k6FCih43JW
	 H54GWGkBr3KsZW8syP1ztaJorZUqVTqlox77ZxNowh5mx61ubIyRaHA3W7KGvEDAz+
	 2fU9zR53ZTOcHxKwngoofFCKr3IzxsLJZ6bEFz+Q=
From: "guojiufu at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/113109] [14 Regression] g++ EH tests fail at
 execution time for cris-elf after r14-6674-g4759383245ac97
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2023 00:34:09 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: EH, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: guojiufu 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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-113109-4-aaEp1eS32T@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113109-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113109-4@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=3D113109

--- Comment #8 from Jiu Fu Guo <guojiufu at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> So I did a quick audit of the EH_RETURN_HANDLER_RTX and most are registers
> rather than a memory location  . And the ones which were memory locations
> used either frame or stack pointer directly which seemed to not to be
> removed. I had originally was going to record my findings but then I saw =
the
> volatile for pa risc and deleted what I had wrote up.

I'm wondering if we need to revert r14-6674 to avoid this functionality iss=
ue.
And revisit/enhance the patch later.=