------- Additional Comments From drew dot johnson at andrew dot com 2005-05-10 12:57 ------- Subject: RE: optimized code seg faults due to double load on sparcV9
OK, I see your point. Sorry for inconvenience. I see that the status in bugzilla has been updated accordingly. Is there anything else I should do to close this? Drew -----Original Message----- From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 6:59 AM To: Johnson, Drew Subject: [Bug target/21389] optimized code seg faults due to double load on sparcV9 ------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-08 10:58 ------- > Then what is the point of the -munaligned-doubles flag? Is this simply > ignored? I understand your point about malloc, but what if we have > casts to buffers that are not mod8-aligned? Isn't that what > -munaligned-doubles is for? Excerpt from the manual: With `-munaligned-doubles', GCC assumes that doubles have 8 byte alignment only if they are contained in another type, or if they have an absolute address. Otherwise, it assumes they have 4 byte alignment. Specifying this option avoids some rare compatibility problems with code generated by other compilers. It is not the default because it results in a performance loss, especially for floating point code. So -munaligned-doubles cannot do anything for your invalid code and the bus error is to be expected. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21389 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of this email is prohibited. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [mf2] -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21389
