On Thu, 26 Jan 2012, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > Now that Richi has fixed up SRA not to pessimize code by changing non-BLK > > mode arguments into their BLKmode subparts, I think it would be nice > > to fix up also the expansion of the BLKmode MEM_REFs that have non-BLKmode > > non-addressable base decl. While this doesn't happen for this testcase > > anymore, it rarely still occurs and I think it is wrong to expand > > a BLKmode MEM_REF into a non-BLKmode rtx. While the callers sometimes > > can cope with it, often they can't. > > Another example is PR middle-end/51959, the BLKmode MEM_REF with non-BLKmode > base is created by inlining, expanded to a DImode REG in expand_assignment > and > then sent to store_field, which attemps to spill it to memory but runs into > an > alias set conflict. I'll try to redirect it to the regular MEM_REF expander > instead, so your patch might be a prerequisite.
Hmm, how can store_field run into an "alias set conflict"? ... Richard.
