From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-492282-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 44020 invoked by alias); 14 Jul 2015 23:12:15 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 43971 invoked by uid 48); 14 Jul 2015 23:12:11 -0000
From: "marcus at jet dot franken.de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/66865] [6 Regression] wine64 segfaults from gcc in trunk (r225757) (regression)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 23:12:00 -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: 6.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: marcus at jet dot franken.de
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: 6.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-66865-4-7dxjNluA2n@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-66865-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-66865-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-07/txt/msg01172.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66865

--- Comment #8 from marcus at jet dot franken.de ---
FWIW, it seems it is thinking that %rsi stays alive over sprintfW calls.

        leaq    formatW.23952(%rip), %rsi       #,
        movzbl  (%r14), %edx    # MEM[(const struct SID *)pSid_9(D)].Revision,
D.26187
        leaq    2(%r13), %rbx   #, tmp159
        .loc 1 1767 0
        movw    %ax, 48(%rsp)   #, MEM[(WCHAR *)&buffer]
        .loc 1 1768 0
        xorl    %eax, %eax      #
        movq    %rbx, %rdi      # tmp159,
        call    sprintfW@PLT    #
.LVL800:
        .loc 1 1769 0
        movzbl  4(%r14), %edx   # MEM[(const struct SID
*)pSid_9(D)].IdentifierAuthority.Value, D.26187
        .loc 1 1768 0
        cltq
        .loc 1 1769 0
        movzbl  7(%r14), %ecx   # MEM[(const struct SID
*)pSid_9(D)].IdentifierAuthority.Value, D.26189
        .loc 1 1768 0
        leaq    (%rbx,%rax,2), %rbx     #, p
.LVL801:
        .loc 1 1769 0
        movzbl  5(%r14), %eax   # MEM[(const struct SID
*)pSid_9(D)].IdentifierAuthority.Value, D.26189
        movq    %rbx, %rdi      # p,
        sall    $8, %edx        #, D.26187
        orl     %eax, %edx      # D.26189, D.26189
        movzbl  6(%r14), %eax   # MEM[(const struct SID
*)pSid_9(D)].IdentifierAuthority.Value, D.26187
        sall    $16, %edx       #, D.26191
        sall    $8, %eax        #, D.26187
        orl     %ecx, %eax      # D.26189, D.26189
        movzwl  %ax, %eax       # D.26189, D.26191
        orl     %eax, %edx      # D.26191, D.26191
        xorl    %eax, %eax      #
        call    sprintfW@PLT    #

%rsi seems expected at this last sprintfW, but is already clobbered by the
previous one.


We had two of these bugs already.