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 BE1C938313A7; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 19:53:05 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BE1C938313A7
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1718999585;
	bh=KR4WxvWSkiyG25bSOiauUPjwaTL9opS7Fdoo7vc2YdE=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=nO77VDoE+XvFFqsMWZuvjTFS9oNumkaAZFwROIpaqNaJ3PNCks/QpkD0virbziZ/c
	 gaD8HhhVAiCECnWvWjfCLiP9DYz7SS01MSFZmPRbGU+PVMZZVbZ/X6xVQlel8AWIk3
	 z4H5RBd+SbnlQg8ODYtkBxPmJuMvfBioW080NwNU=
From: "bergner at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/114846] powerpc: epilogue in _Unwind_RaiseException
 corrupts return value due to __builtin_eh_return
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 19:53:04 +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: bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-114846-4-nT2lA4vYNl@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-114846-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-114846-4@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=3D114846

--- Comment #11 from Peter Bergner <bergner at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #10)
> (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #9)
> > (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #8)
> > > Should be fixed on trunk, it's not a regression, but we probably want
> > > backporting this?
> >=20
> > For code correctness bugs, yes, we want them backported.
>=20
> Thanks for confirming!  Will do backporting after burn-in time.

Have we done the backports so we can just mark this bug a FIXED?  ...or do =
we
still need to push the backports?=