From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 102021 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2015 11:36:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 101990 invoked by uid 48); 26 Feb 2015 11:36:41 -0000 From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/65215] [5 Regression] Bswap load miscompilation Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 12:37:00 -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-Version: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg02906.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65215 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #7) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6) > > I can certainly remove that hunk from the patch, if the expander and other > > passes handle it well. The test can stay I guess. > > Things are at least working on x86 (obviously), ARM and SPARC (after > PR61320's fix). Also this code is there since a long time without any bug > report problems due to unalignment. Ok. > One question about the patch: is there a reason not to use n->range instead > of GET_MODE_BITSIZE (TYPE_MODE (load_type))? Supposedly that can be used too, that should probably always be the case.