From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-352826-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 26515 invoked by alias); 7 Apr 2011 13:35:23 -0000
Received: (qmail 26469 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Apr 2011 13:35:22 -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; Thu, 07 Apr 2011 13:35:17 +0000
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/48377] [4.6/4.7 regression] miscompilation at -O3
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: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.6.1
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-48377-4-uUfX7FqWit@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-48377-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-48377-4@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: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 13:35:00 -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: 2011-04/txt/msg00730.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48377

--- Comment #31 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-04-07 13:35:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #30)
> This is certainly a valid testcase:
> 
> struct S { long long x; int a; double b[10000]; int c; } s;
> double *p = &s.b[0];
> int
> foo (double *q)
> {
>   int i, j = 0;
>   for (i = 0; i < 10000; i++)
>     j += *q++;
>   return j;
> }
> int
> main (void)
> {
>   return foo (p);
> }
> 
> and without the target hook, vectorizer would think it can peel the loop and
> get it naturally aligned (assuming it isn't inlined at least etc. to see that q
> points to &s.b[0] initially).
> 
> I think the bug is in the ABIs that do that kind of thing, but it is too late
> to fix the ABIs up.

The question is what we should do in the middle-end.  If the above would
happen for strict-alignment targets then *p would simply trap.  The
only consistent way for the middle-end would be to simply assume all
pointer-to-doubles are only aligned to 4 bytes, thus use the minimal
alignment that can happen (without using GCC extensions).