http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45670
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-11-05 11:17:11 UTC --- > Well, it is actually very much related to that reversion. While it didn't > regress in between 161907 and 162617, it regressed from the MEM_REF merge till > 161906 and from 162618 onwards. Yes, that isn't different from what I said, it had been caused by something else. > The problem is that due to the MEM load combiner isn't able to fix this up, so > if we don't get it right during expansion, we are out of luck. Looking at it > now... Thanks!
