https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119314
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Novel from comment #0) > ; CODE XREF from sym.IGNORE_THIS_ITS_FUNCTION_NAME @ 0x8bcc(x) > ; 0x28f58 > lea rdi, section..got > call fcn.00006260;[ob] > ; int64_t arg3 > mov rdx, rbp > ; int64_t arg1 > mov edi, 2 > ; int64_t arg2 > ; 0x234e6 > ; "2 Data %p\n" > lea rsi, str.2_Data__p_n > mov rax, qword [rax] > add rbx, qword [rax + 0x10] > xor eax, eax > mov r13, qword [rbx + 8] > mov ebx, dword [rbx + 0x10] > call sym.log_log;[oa] > xor eax, eax > ; int64_t arg3 > mov edx, r14d > ; int64_t arg1 > mov edi, 2 > ; int64_t arg2 > ; 0x234f1 > ; "2 Size %d\n" > lea rsi, str.2_Size__d_n > call sym.log_log;[oa] > test rbp, rbp > je 0x8a98 Test %RBP . So if a function does not restore correctly %RBP things could go wrong. Also try running your test program under valgrind, it might catch some stuff too. The other thing to try is change log_info to be a just printf. There could be a bug in musl fprintf too that is not restoring some register correctly. It is not obvious what is going on here from even the snip of code.
