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 1F2953858034; Tue,  2 Mar 2021 10:27:26 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 1F2953858034
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/99324] [8/9/10/11 Regression] ICE in mark_addressable, at
 gimple-expr.c:918 since r6-314
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2021 10:27:25 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 8.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-99324-4-qV1gqJNvtr@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-99324-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-99324-4@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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2021 10:27:26 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D99324

--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Wouldn't it be better to remove the mark_addressable call from build_va_a=
rg
> and call {c,cxx}_mark_addressable in the callers instead.

Sure, or make it a langhook so c-common code can call the "correct"
mark_addresable (there's also c_common_mark_addressable_vec which might
suggest that splitting out common c_common_mark_addressable from
{c,cxx}_mark_addressable should be viable and use that).

> That way we'd also e.g. diagnose invalid (on i686-linux):
> register __builtin_va_list ap __asm ("%ebx");
>=20
> void
> foo (int a, ...)
> {
>   __builtin_va_arg (ap, int);
> }=