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 A62043858D39; Tue,  9 Apr 2024 19:00:22 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A62043858D39
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1712689222;
	bh=i2BvMDNXGvQbcBjXF8Jf0QZdU5XT5DGVC+qli+FPR/E=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=b3SpIKyvu8csTV/xD0jYGsmN2ywFBmhG5vFyzDlZ8dIDr1dZafGfTzU4PJowuEa0g
	 k7xktjHiUs27/wjfmuSfEwUZYf4fEf3Af2+1kdz+MEyEhyybcmQL38/I2UWKxpiHG/
	 vqNr8CqgXsm49cYMFWuBCCiyzNPT17SYDqmgGpGQ=
From: "bergner at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/114664] -fno-omit-frame-pointer causes an ICE
 during the build of the greenlet package
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2024 19:00:22 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: bergner 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: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-114664-4-vjczux8HeF@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-114664-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-114664-4@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=3D114664

--- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner <bergner at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
CC'ing some architecture and RA experts for their input.

I believe the riscv64 test showing the same issue would be:

void
bug (void)
{
  __asm__ volatile ("" : : : "s0");
}

...but I don't have a cross compiler right now to verify.

Interestingly, I tried what I thought would be the aarch64 test case
(clobbering x29), but it did not ICE.  Did I use the wrong hard frame point=
er
register or is aarch64 doing something different here?=