http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #22 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Created attachment 30732 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30732&action=edit Another attempt at a fix I simply moved the decision whether to go the misalignp path or not a bit down in the function, below the address adjustments done for non-NULL offset, strict volatile bit fields etc. and ran the testsuite, expecting some fallout. But there was none the patch even survives a bootstrap on x86_64-linux. I'm hesitant to call it the fix, I'd like to have a second look at it after the weekend but if someone wants to test meanwhile, such input would be highly welcome.
