This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug target/44903] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr35258.c execution test
- From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 11 Jul 2010 22:04:16 -0000
- Subject: [Bug target/44903] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr35258.c execution test
- References: <bug-44903-276@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-11 22:04 -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr35258.c execution test
>
> > The above testcase worked? Not the pr35258.c, but the one I gave, with
> > the int aligned(1)? The difference on the 4.5 branch is that we left the
> > memcpy call alone and did not inline-expand it on the tree level.
>
> The above testcase doesn't work with 4.5 and I doubt it ever worked on
> PA. The pointer passed to foo is used as is. It's only the memcpy special
> case that is handled by 4.5 and earlier.
On i?86 we get correct 1-byte alignment for the pointer access while on
my ia64-cross the MEM has 4-byte alignment which is wrong. t is properly
1-byte aligned (and pointer-to packed structs for example will work only
because there's a handled_component_ref around the pointer dereference).
> > I am trying to say that we hit a latent bug here, and that it's finally time
> > to fix it (but I don't easily see how to do that in the most efficient way).
>
> Dave
>
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44903