On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:07 AM, Yuehai Du wrote:
> 2011/11/18 Richard Guenther :
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:49 AM, Yuehai Du wrote:
>>> 2011/11/17 Richard Guenther :
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Eric Botcazou
wrote:
>> Huh, IVOPTs should never cause a different size memory
2011/11/18 Richard Guenther :
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:49 AM, Yuehai Du wrote:
>> 2011/11/17 Richard Guenther :
>>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Eric Botcazou
>>> wrote:
> Huh, IVOPTs should never cause a different size memory read. I wonder
> if the original issue would still r
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Huh, IVOPTs should never cause a different size memory read. I wonder
>> if the original issue would still reproduce with the fix reverted.
>
> The original issue was unaligned arrays in packed structures. I don't see
> what
> could have
> Huh, IVOPTs should never cause a different size memory read. I wonder
> if the original issue would still reproduce with the fix reverted.
The original issue was unaligned arrays in packed structures. I don't see what
could have changed since then.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 4:58 AM, Yuehai Du wrote:
> Hi
>
> i found IVOPTS didn't work well on some case if the loop contain
> some unaligned access. it didn't take this kind of memory access into
> account because this check in function:find_interesting_uses_address
>
> /* Moreover, on stric
