From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-118012-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 24630 invoked by alias); 2 Aug 2005 22:15:20 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 24609 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Aug 2005 22:15:15 -0000
Received: from rproxy.gmail.com (HELO rproxy.gmail.com) (64.233.170.202)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:15:15 +0000
Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id a36so2158923rnf
        for <gcc@sources.redhat.com>; Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:13:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.11.99.3 with SMTP id w3mr89cwb;
        Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:07:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.11.99.15 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Aug 2005 15:07:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <7f45d9390508021507322c81a2@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:15:00 -0000
From: Shaun Jackman <sjackman@gmail.com>
Reply-To: Shaun Jackman <sjackman@gmail.com>
To: Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.com>
Subject: Re: memcpy to an unaligned address
Cc: Mike Stump <mrs@apple.com>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>, 
	Dave Korn <dave.korn@artimi.com>, 
	Paul Koning <pkoning@equallogic.com>, gcc@sources.redhat.com
In-Reply-To: <20050802211112.GB30893@synopsys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <200508022037.j72Kbr4T012558@earth.phy.uc.edu>
	 <33EADFBB-0C16-4FD9-BC0D-E681C0A61C46@apple.com>
	 <20050802211112.GB30893@synopsys.com>
X-SW-Source: 2005-08/txt/msg00093.txt.bz2

On 8/2/05, Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.com> wrote:
> I suppose we could make & on an unaligned project return a void*.  That
> isn't really right, but it would at least prevent the cases that we know
> don't work from compiling.

That sounds like a dangerous idea only because I'd expect...
	int *p =3D &packed_struct.unaligned_member;
... to fail if unaligned_member is not an int, but if the & operator
returns a void*, it would suddenly become very permissive.

Cheers,
Shaun