From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-336956-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 20688 invoked by alias); 12 Nov 2010 17:35:56 -0000
Received: (qmail 20319 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Nov 2010 17:35:55 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 Nov 2010 17:35:08 +0000
From: "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/45722] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20040709-2.c execution at -O1 and -Os
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.6.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-45722-4-NiZbUEkt2b@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-45722-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-45722-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 17:44:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-11/txt/msg01689.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45722

--- Comment #33 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-11-12 17:34:26 UTC ---
> The memory has MEM_ALIGN 8, but we of course just ignore that for
> STRICT_ALIGNMENT targets.  So the situation is similar to the old
> mishandling of
> 
> typedef int myint __attribute__((aligned(1)));
> 
> int foo (myint *p)
> {
>   return *p;
> }
> 
> int main()
> {
>   char c[5];
>   return foo (&c[1]);
> }
> 
> where on old GCC releases we don't run into unaligned memory load
> handling for STRICT_ALINGMENT targets either (INDIRECT_REF never
> tried to handle that case, I tried to cover up for that with
> usign movmisalign where available for MEM_REF).  Now as the alignment
> info on the type of the mem-ref is bogus the
> 
>         align = MAX (TYPE_ALIGN (TREE_TYPE (exp)),
>                      get_object_alignment (exp, BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT));
> 
> hunk will make that handling not trigger anyway.
> 
> So, it's a) SRAs fault to not preserve alignment b) a general and
> very very old problem of GCC (the C FE also doesn't have proper
> types when taking the address of a field of a packed struct).

Yes, accesses to unaligned stuff is an old problem, see for example PR c/18287,
and INDIRECT_REFs indeed never tried to handle this.  However, this shouldn't
be the problem here since there are no indirect accesses involved, it's just:

struct E sE;

struct E x;

  x = sE;

Why on earth does SRA now introduce indirect accesses to scalarize a direct
assignment between 2 structures with the same type?