From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 6DE2E3858D33; Mon, 23 Jan 2023 07:29:14 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6DE2E3858D33
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1674458954;
	bh=B6kCmvY+DRMiJhdyovxzgzizd4B4EyVUIpi9Sp54RyE=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=jq9SNcCUntvqKS6SZ7SFY5HTu2yzgyVv9KIc0r6no3ZBfkY47bBp9yEmIwV5ZYj+n
	 VI8t8MJGHtAwNJ42UaMzPB8VzrA//vz1ma2ghZacRV4f6HTfG/o0sI9W8yQNASoIx4
	 t6U3SliaOL10p2WfW4esu/dCdUaNmKVgf0cU2PCQ=
From: "felix at breitweiser dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/103100] [11/12/13 Regression] unaligned access generated
 with memset or {} and -O2 -mstrict-align
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 07:29:12 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: patch, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: felix at breitweiser dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.4
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-103100-4-CCNmHKCr6i@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-103100-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-103100-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D103100

--- Comment #15 from felix at breitweiser dot de ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #14)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> > > Updated patch submitted:
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-January/589254.html
> >=20
> > I think you need to ping your patches more aggressively ...
>=20
> Richard Sandiford reviewed it here:|
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/589581.html
> So the problem is that the review wasn't followed up by the submitter.

I did not know that I have any further obligation on this past submitting t=
he
bug, I never submitted a bug before. Anyway, the since the patch works (at
least for my use case), do I have to mark this as resolved, fixed?=