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 EDF5C384A06B; Fri, 10 May 2024 12:11:10 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org EDF5C384A06B
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1715343070;
	bh=BLlKkBO3uJRGufX8CDrK1GV7hgtVJBn3YMlxn1KwVlw=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=mvzwa2Ilj+ZMz6ThtYZIMVsTNnyZ5F56IpaVseLOH/+qHBQic0q8ZYxzTlsJyAkE2
	 XHmh3q0TQ0BHuB4zeVEc8NP/ATwE753aC8LVfQWzn2ecup+mW0e1PaTDZK0SOtmMeh
	 MRY/9/6YYDzU8WVUWS0sjAJdZYtHXKpUuxcocqFA=
From: "xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/115014] GCC generates incorrect instructions for
 addressing the data segment through EBP register
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 12:11:10 +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: 13.2.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING
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-115014-4-OWk6N8CLI5@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-115014-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-115014-4@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=3D115014

--- Comment #11 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> int f(int *a)
> {
>   int b;
>   size_t t =3D (size_t)&b;
>   size_t t1 =3D (size_t)a;
>   return *(int*)(((size_t)&b)+(t-t1));
> }
>=20
> Is kinda of valid c but might fail with your definition.

The result of integer-to-pointer conversion is implementation-defined, so i=
t's
not necessarily valid if the implementation has segmented memory.=