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 D5B033858D33; Tue,  6 Feb 2024 18:37:47 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D5B033858D33
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1707244667;
	bh=p4pyIMfZ0dPenhsaJ87oN7a+zqCgzTrL5wpe8h3ECfU=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=nDDjWEQY8sUeH/fJElC6zs6AnS9ygDow34ZjgeaH5zglGuZFF0mQ1BkxLgq8svIxQ
	 gzR6GkTnVOKOepwZvx6Zmip72WCeRHU0HrDCMSu2WPjXSSZEg5PjG2CSzfZrofrkPN
	 tKL0FOC3/d3iZ6npIXNbBHDjlifUlV+7u6BIj3sU=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/113689] [11/12/13/14 Regression] wrong code with
 -fprofile -mcmodel=large when needing drap register since r11-6548
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2024 18:37:47 +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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-113689-4-ipz4jFU5vF@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113689-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113689-4@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=3D113689

--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #7)
> This patch broke Solaris/x86 (i386-pc-solaris2.11) bootstrap:
>=20
> /vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc: In function 'void
> x86_function_profiler(std::FILE*, int)':
> /vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc:22838:40: error: arr=
ay
> subscript -1 is below array bounds of 'const char* const [92]'
> [-Werror=3Darray-bounds=3D]
> 22838 |               reg =3D hi_reg_name[scratch];
>       |                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^c-include=3D/vol/gcc/incl=
ude
> /vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc:138:26: note: while
> referencing 'hi_reg_name'=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
> --with-target-bdw-gc-lib=3D/vol/gcc/lib,amd64=3D/vo  138 | static const c=
har
> *const hi_reg_name[] =3D HI_REGISTER_NAMES;
>       |                          ^~~~~~~~~~~

Guess for the case where we issue sorry we shouldn't return INVALID_REGNUM,=
 but
R10_REG or any other, we acknowledged we aren't emitting correct assembly
already.

And, as I wrote earlier, I think if we did similar discovery at
pro_and_epilogue time and find we otherwise wouldn't have any registers for=
 it
and would sorry at final time, it might be better to just pick some call us=
ed
register and forcibly save it even when it isn't strictly needed.  Then it
wouldn't sorry at final time anymore.=