On 12/20/2016 11:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Andreas Krebbel > <kreb...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >> When pushing a value into the literal pool the resulting decl might >> get a higher alignment than the original expression depending on how a >> target defines CONSTANT_ALIGNMENT. Generating an RTX for the constant >> pool access we currently use the alignment from the original >> expression. Changed with the attached patch. > > And it might be even smaller alignment... or do we not allow that? I did assume that this is not supposed to happen. Adding an assertion triggering in that case survived bootstrap and testsuite. s390x only. It basically boils down to whether align_variable and set_mem_attributes/get_object_alignment come to different conclusions about the alignment starting at either the var decl or the original expression.
... >> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64 and s390x. >> >> No regressions. >> >> Ok? > > Ok. > > Richard. Ok for GCC 6 branch as well? -Andreas-
