http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48124
--- Comment #24 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-31 10:36:10 UTC --- > I'll test it on i?85-linux as well. I don't have access to a > strict-alignment platform - but the patch is essentially the same > as on trunk. Can you give it a shot on sparc or do you forsee any > issues and thus would rather not backport this kind of change? The > idea was that 4.7.1 would still be ok but later this kind of change > is obviously too intrusive. Yes, I think it's appropriate for 4.7.1 if all the follow-ups are backported as well. I'll give it a whirl on SPARC. --- Comment #25 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2012-05-31 10:38:23 UTC --- On Thu, 31 May 2012, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48124 > > --- Comment #24 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-31 > 10:36:10 UTC --- > > I'll test it on i?85-linux as well. I don't have access to a > > strict-alignment platform - but the patch is essentially the same > > as on trunk. Can you give it a shot on sparc or do you forsee any > > issues and thus would rather not backport this kind of change? The > > idea was that 4.7.1 would still be ok but later this kind of change > > is obviously too intrusive. > > Yes, I think it's appropriate for 4.7.1 if all the follow-ups are backported > as > well. I'll give it a whirl on SPARC. I think I have included them all in the patch I attached. Meanwhile multilib testing has finished on x86_64, a pure i?86 bootstrap still pending (I'm also testing on arm and ppc/ppc64 now, but that may take a while)
