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 B57353858431; Fri,  5 Apr 2024 10:30:27 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B57353858431
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1712313027;
	bh=Mf1Qbx659XureLSQiXf+FJkXigZtOctFTNRdPicaiUg=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=FjpCB+mAbpX6bnkJ4kkECy0cdXh6zEgz0LH+7zwRQTS1PykQxff4ylKy+lmxueV+Z
	 zSHMN/wMG9xsUKBs5hwQj6PYhdkcKzhsIMrOiV4gcDd/KRNzFnC2vzuYYQB509tbgH
	 5nHAhQXMGlpsvHL2qAbySxRLv7lB7J4NgiOUz6zY=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/114566] [11/12/13/14 Regression] Misaligned
 vmovaps when compiling with stack-protector-strong for znver4
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2024 10:30:25 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.2.0
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-114566-4-NIEdSbftRv@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-114566-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-114566-4@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=3D114566

--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> > Marking for 14 as well because I believe the trunk commit just made it
> > latent there rather than fixed.
>=20
> You might be able to reproduce it on the trunk with -fno-vect-cost-model
> because the patch which made it latent was to the cost model.

It doesn't reproduce even with -fno-vect-cost-model on the trunk.

That said, I've posted
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-April/648850.html=