http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57955
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I don't understand the comment "questionable optimization patterns".
I don't see much value in optimizing a memcpy to initialize a variable, it's
unlikely to be in a hot spot. I'd suggest adding 'const' to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57955
--- Comment #3 from David Edelsohn ---
The change caused a testcase failure, which was not investigated. I don't
understand the comment "questionable optimization patterns". Optimizing for
size should be controlled by -Os.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57955
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
The subject is very misleading, the alignment of constants is _not_ changed at
all, otherwise many things would have been broken. The only change pertains to
the internal alignment of initializers and cannot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57955
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|U
