From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 61B213858C74; Wed, 20 Sep 2023 20:20:17 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 61B213858C74 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1695241217; bh=nolx6lWbjSTW7P3mBl2/3UvvGLCS0U6BVr+u0JdJ2Pw=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=wIyiiMfdrT/1FEkhUyLVkcyC+8mnmY6EQD5B+84hYzEgCAG4FDEC3cfXqhyTkMZ17 4+uDAP0eCdM/nNKcZYdqH6PIXutg90TD09l67Mzwg1XnBrQJqBqwyEtybHRPDAtLKp xjcz+X+3t0IqAs/7aM/HuGQTUTOHXsQu1TdUX/pc= From: "andrew at sifive dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/111502] Suboptimal unaligned 2/4-byte memcpy on strict-align targets Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2023 20:20:16 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.2.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: andrew at sifive dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D111502 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Waterman --- Ack, I misunderstood your earlier message. You're of course right that the load/load/shift/or sequence is preferable to the load/load/store/store/load sequence, on just about any practical implementation. That the memcpy vers= ion is optimized less optimally does seem to be disjoint from the issue Andrew mentioned.=