From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-377679-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 7054 invoked by alias); 20 Dec 2011 11:24:30 -0000
Received: (qmail 7045 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Dec 2011 11:24:29 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 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; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:24:16 +0000
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/51628] __attribute__((packed)) is unsafe in some cases
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:34:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-51628-4-61GpKMWZEY@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-51628-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-51628-4@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
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: 2011-12/txt/msg02245.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628

--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2011-12-20 11:23:48 UTC ---
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
> 
> --- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-12-20 11:18:24 UTC ---
> > Huh, it's not.  It's the same as a packed struct or enum type.
> 
> No, it isn't, the mode is integral instead of BLKmode.  In Ada we do support
> misaligned integers, but we simply wrap them in a BLKmode record.
> 
> > Why can't you strict-align people simply fix this case?
> 
> Because integral modes are naturally aligned.  The only reasonable way to
> support the aforementioned abomination is to use the Ada approach.

You mean that handling the TYPE_ALIGN != MODE_ALIGN case when
expanding a MEM_REF (thus, INDIRECT_REF on old branches) won't work?
Why not?  You'd simply have to emit the same RTL as when expanding
that wrapped struct case.

Richard.