From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-294262-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 542 invoked by alias); 12 Jun 2011 15:55:28 -0000
Received: (qmail 534 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Jun 2011 15:55:27 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-qy0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-qy0-f175.google.com) (209.85.216.175)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 12 Jun 2011 15:55:13 +0000
Received: by qyk35 with SMTP id 35so550473qyk.20        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Sun, 12 Jun 2011 08:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.106.34 with SMTP id v34mr3143159qco.111.1307894112016; Sun, 12 Jun 2011 08:55:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.47.78 with HTTP; Sun, 12 Jun 2011 08:55:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20110612145443.GA7920@kam.mff.cuni.cz>
References: <20110611125552.GA25068@kam.mff.cuni.cz>	<BANLkTim23fOqkBS+QKfmmpExBrAXfTNdAw@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTik8zti5+FwGHX=j3_MKqEgAgxPZAA@mail.gmail.com>	<20110612145443.GA7920@kam.mff.cuni.cz>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 16:29:00 -0000
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=dv6ZauuJzSy9vgN713cCLg8ObvA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Cgraph alias reorg 15/14 (New infrastructure for same body aliases)
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
To: Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg00947.txt.bz2

On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz> wrote:
>>
>> This also pretty much destroyed C++ for ia32:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49378
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2011-06/msg00159.html
>
> Hi,
> It seems somewhat amazing that we hit kernel sensitive miscompilation here.
> The problem most probably is the fact that thunks and functions with thunks can become
> local. This is correct since thunks are represented as direct calls now, but this
> makes i386 to use local ABI when calling or compiling them.
>

For x86-64, we use the same ABI for local and global. But RAX seems
used and uninitialized in thunk.

-- 
H.J.