From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15792 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2010 23:35:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 15680 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2010 23:34:58 -0000 Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 23:35:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100710233458.15679.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug target/44903] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr35258.c execution test In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca" 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: 2010-07/txt/msg01170.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #3 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-10 23:34 ------- Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr35258.c execution test On Sat, 10 Jul 2010, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > I get for all memory accesses an alignment of 8 at expansion time which looks > correct (on i?86). Please debug this a bit, set_mem_attributes_minus_bitpos > looks conservative enough. The rtl in question is the following: (insn 8 6 11 /test/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr35258.c:16 (set (reg:SI 28 %r28 [orig:94 D.1980 ] [94]) (mem/c:SI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 1 %r1 [95]) (const_int 1 [0x1])) [0 MEM[(char * {ref-all})&str + 1B]+0 S4 A8])) 37 {*pa.md:2102} (nil)) An alignment of 8 is not sufficient for a 4 byte (SImode) load on targets that define STRICT_ALIGNMENT. We need an alignment of 32. I believe the i?86 hardware allows unaligned addresses, so you wouldn't see the problem. Dave -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44903