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 708033858C42; Fri, 26 Apr 2024 18:39:37 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 708033858C42
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1714156777;
	bh=nfpwuuIruD25A8sugvUBI5AotDu1sdl48waICwHSAfs=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=KR8bx/uDcCAp/w6lggrE+B7wMvRjn38y+5otgUlMMGfKyeQOFeExdJpaMRaECZ2oP
	 1nBMH//necoXQoTT9vLS4nDDhhQDtiNVtg/+Ndof141sbBUF4qXag26ayfmk7YsmFx
	 4DtUTFhfhEHgytILRgywgGhKVc8TCHKIw2Bo/F7s=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/114843] aarch64: epilogue in _Unwind_RaiseException
 corrupts return value due to __builtin_eh_return
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 18:39:37 +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: critical
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-114843-4-OfKbqf5tj5@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-114843-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-114843-4@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=3D114843

--- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #17)
> So I don't believe you should change aarch64_pop_regs at all - it's too l=
ate
> to change things and just adds unnecessary complexity and more bugs. The
> best option would be to handle eh_return explicitly and insert the extra
> push/pops rather than treating them like a generic callee-save (because
> clearly they are not anymore).

Thinking about this I think you are right, I will work on an incremental pa=
tch
to change them to be in seperate array. Note I do have a fix for the issue =
in
comment #17, I had a premature optimization thinking only if regno1 was an
eh_handler data register, then regno2 could be one; rather they should be
checked independently. I will attach that patch to this bug once my testing=
 is
finished. And then will work on splitting out the eh_handler data register
load/stores.=