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 04FDD3858C98; Sun, 24 Dec 2023 00:58:47 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 04FDD3858C98
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1703379528;
	bh=5FXbiMNAkhkOg4/U9z1bChBwgVxMXEJqr5JrAof5QOY=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=BmraYfcXCf0Pv6WklFDPEcSEIxM04s/p+h18TYt2TmAO+H09sg2pk+t7rBIpKoDA4
	 XmniR8eVVaVvo2ryT8jmbftBzjwObPIX3YFVCULnaIwZnVy7GGlp+7ulGlFpGOTQ1V
	 cY6I2L+Z5ECXm6cEAXld63yjiT4/uMBFiNGGnLv4=
From: "hp 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 00:58:45 +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: hp 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-zViOGEymjq@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 #10 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp 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

Yeah, me too.

> 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.

And those that with an address relative to hard_frame_pointer_rtx, marks the
mem as volatile.

> 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.

Ouch, "never delete what you can't undo".  Sometimes you turn back another =
180
degrees from your 180 turn in the middle of the analysis or bug-hunt.  Was =
it
more than a list of targets and their EH macros and patterns?

The fun thing is that the dse1 pass (the culprit) works before pro/epilogue
expansion, so it sees stores without the matching loads.  That is, for targ=
ets
that just define EH_RETURN_HANDLER_RTX (no eh_return pattern or any fancy
extra) and handles EH at epilogue expansion time.=