From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-377721-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 3058 invoked by alias); 20 Dec 2011 17:45:03 -0000
Received: (qmail 2892 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Dec 2011 17:45:01 -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 17:44:47 +0000
From: "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org" <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 17:45:00 -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: ebotcazou 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: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-51628-4-jwlROk4Ffk@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/msg02287.txt.bz2

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

--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-12-20 17:43:07 UTC ---
> What Ada does looks just like a workaround for what should be done properly in
> the expander.  So no, IMHO we shouldn't be changing all other FEs and the
> middle-end (when it wants to generate them e.g. for memcpy) to do what Ada
> does, but we should change the expander.

Of course I have the exactly opposite viewpoint, since I think that we should
keep the invariants we have: integral modes are naturally aligned and
TYPE_ALIGN >= MODE_ALIGN (TYPE_MODE).  Breaking them for a few pathological
cases that the C compiler has shun for years doesn't seem the best course of
action.