From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-360016-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 22100 invoked by alias); 17 Jun 2011 08:16:35 -0000
Received: (qmail 22089 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Jun 2011 08:16:33 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 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, 17 Jun 2011 08:16:18 +0000
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/49442] [4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Misaligned store support pessimization
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub 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: 4.5.4
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-49442-4-lGwDhSazZ4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-49442-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-49442-4@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, 17 Jun 2011 08:16:00 -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: 2011-06/txt/msg01542.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49442

--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-06-17 08:15:38 UTC ---
ICC apparently has __assume_aligned (ptr, align) for this, and also
#pragma vector {aligned,unaligned,always,nontemporal}.
For alignment, I'd say having both hard alignment and likely alignment hints
somewhere in the code would be better than ptr_align attribute on the
arguments,
so something like
__builtin_assume_aligned (ptr, align[, misalign])
and
__builtin_likely_aligned (ptr, align[, misalign]);
would be helpful.  The question is if they shouldn't return the pointer again,
and let the user write it in the form
ptr = __builtin_assume_aligned (ptr, 16);
which would be optimized away when we compute the alignment.