From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21401 invoked by alias); 11 Jul 2010 22:04:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 21355 invoked by uid 48); 11 Jul 2010 22:04:16 -0000 Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:04:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100711220416.21354.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: "rguenth 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: 2010-07/txt/msg01231.txt.bz2 ------- 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