On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Well, I can live with this change (though I cannot approve anything).
>> On the other hand, the real underlying problem is that expander cannot
>> handle unaligned MEM_REFs where strict alignment is required. SRA is
>> of course much more
> Well, I can live with this change (though I cannot approve anything).
> On the other hand, the real underlying problem is that expander cannot
> handle unaligned MEM_REFs where strict alignment is required. SRA is
> of course much more prone to create such situations than anything else
> but I w
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 10:31:23PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this is a regression present on mainline and 4.6 branch at -O for the SPARC.
> The compiler again generates an unaligned access for the memcpy calls in:
>
> struct event {
> struct {
> unsigned int sec;
>
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this is a regression present on mainline and 4.6 branch at -O for the SPARC.
> The compiler again generates an unaligned access for the memcpy calls in:
>
> struct event {
> struct {
> unsigned int sec;
> } sent __attrib
