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 394873857B86; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:46:59 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 394873857B86
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1710460019;
	bh=U+Lxf5Dsz01wOSUbeNLnl/1lozXF8+7VaJuswczKzyM=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=ryCXTpck2+6RfCq8LulWc/4HWX6oZBeiO+HinH366PJfqB/wAwMSPiHB0HSpSl8Ja
	 d2qUBc8haloNk4u26XdHzQ2pmqEqlhs1nZ8PDQ3VBNFNlmj5WdXCCdNOh5lmTtJ3HL
	 MennyGl3GVm2L3RGB3EsY5oAuDNqhkY/sv2g/2kk=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/111555] [AArch64] __ARM_FEATURE_UNALIGNED should be
 undefined with -mstrict-align
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:46:58 +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: 13.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
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: <bug-111555-4-Eh8ulW3phm@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-111555-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-111555-4@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=3D111555

--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to YunQiang Su from comment #2)
> > For AArch64, clang supports `-mno-unaligned-access`, while gcc doesn't,
> > should we add it as an alias of -mstrict-align?
>=20
> -mno-unaligned-access is the arm option here rather than the aarch64 opti=
on
> :).
> I suspect clang folks decided to have the same option for both targets. I
> don't think we should support -mno-unaligned-access for aarch64 GCC.

See PR 99890 where -mstrict-align was rejected for arm.=