This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFC] Fixing expansion of misaligned MEM_REFs on strict-alignment targets


On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Eric Botcazou wrote:

> > Eric, do you have any objections in principle of handling
> > get_object_or_type_alignment () < GET_MODE_ALIGNMENT (mode)
> > stores/loads this way?
> 
> None, extract_bit_field/store_bit_field are the right devices for this purpose.
> What I have objections against is to have types that are less aligned than 
> their modes, but I guess that I can look elsewhere when there is one. :-)

:-)

Not sure if it would be easier to have integer types with BLKmode in
GIMPLE though ... that surely will have more fallout.  Well, another
reason to look back at the first mem-ref branch where it had an
explicit alignment operand (and thus no need to encode alignment
info in the type).  Thus, consider that 
type-with-alignment-less-than-its-mode an artifact of that.

Richard.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]