https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43311
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host|x86_64-gnu-linux|
Build|x86_64-gnu-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43311
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43311
--- Comment #5 from Zdenek Sojka 2012-01-25 12:56:30
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
>
> No, s.b2 should be 1.
Thank you for the answer. In that case, the optimisation in comment #0 can't be
done in a general case (unless I have overlooked som
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43311
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-25
11:13:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Does the following code have undefined behavior?
>
> typedef struct { unsigned char b1, b2; } __attribute__((aligned(8))) S;
> void f( S const* s, unsign
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43311
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #3 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43311
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-01-24
22:52:54 UTC ---
This is dup of the merge loads from two adjacent memory location into one load
bug. Which I don't remember the number of the bug right now.
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-10 10:55 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
