From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-396908-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 3835 invoked by alias); 19 Jul 2012 13:36:50 -0000
Received: (qmail 3708 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Jul 2012 13:36:49 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED
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, 19 Jul 2012 13:36:36 +0000
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/54031] [4.8 Regression] Revision 189607 miscompiles Linux kernel
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:36:00 -0000
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: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-54031-4-Fg37JhOniZ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-54031-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-54031-4@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: 2012-07/txt/msg01494.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54031

--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-07-19 13:36:34 UTC ---
I have spotted an error in the patch, can you try

Index: gcc/builtins.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/builtins.c      (revision 189656)
+++ gcc/builtins.c      (working copy)
@@ -346,12 +346,10 @@ get_object_alignment_2 (tree exp, unsign

       known_alignment
        = get_pointer_alignment_1 (addr, &ptr_align, &ptr_bitpos);
-      bitpos += ptr_bitpos;
       align = MAX (ptr_align, align);

-      if (TREE_CODE (exp) == MEM_REF
-         || TREE_CODE (exp) == TARGET_MEM_REF)
-       bitpos += mem_ref_offset (exp).low * BITS_PER_UNIT;
+      /* The alignment of the pointer operand in a TARGET_MEM_REF
+        has to take the variable offset parts into account.  */
       if (TREE_CODE (exp) == TARGET_MEM_REF)
        {
          if (TMR_INDEX (exp))
@@ -369,9 +367,19 @@ get_object_alignment_2 (tree exp, unsign
       /* When EXP is an actual memory reference then we can use
         TYPE_ALIGN of a pointer indirection to derive alignment.
         Do so only if get_pointer_alignment_1 did not reveal absolute
-        alignment knowledge.  */
-      if (!addr_p && !known_alignment)
-       align = MAX (TYPE_ALIGN (TREE_TYPE (exp)), align);
+        alignment knowledge and if using that alignment would
+        improve the situation.  */
+      if (!addr_p && !known_alignment
+         && TYPE_ALIGN (TREE_TYPE (exp)) > align)
+       align = TYPE_ALIGN (TREE_TYPE (exp));
+      else
+       {
+         /* Else adjust bitpos accordingly.  */
+         bitpos += ptr_bitpos;
+         if (TREE_CODE (exp) == MEM_REF
+             || TREE_CODE (exp) == TARGET_MEM_REF)
+           bitpos += mem_ref_offset (exp).low * BITS_PER_UNIT;
+       }
     }
   else if (TREE_CODE (exp) == STRING_CST)
     {