From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20722 invoked by alias); 5 May 2009 15:48:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 20641 invoked by uid 48); 5 May 2009 15:48:26 -0000 Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 15:48:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20090505154826.20640.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug middle-end/39954] [4.5 Regression] Revision 146817 caused unaligned access in gcc.dg/torture/pr26565.c In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-05/txt/msg00323.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #12 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 15:48 ------- Yes, we've been discussing the interaction between attributes and the type system for at least a decade. :-) In type-theoretic terms, the address of a packed int has type pointer-to-packed-int, not pointer-to-int. And the latter can be safely converted to the former, but the former cannot be safely converted to the latter. Michael, unfortunately, if it was your change that introduced this regression, you are responsible for solving the problem. The Right Answer, as you suggest, is to include the packed attribute in the type system, but I suspect that will be a major effort. Unfortunately, I don't know what else to suggest... -- mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|P3 |P1 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39954