On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 01:45:01PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Yes, this is a compiler bug in the expansion of memcpy, please file a > > > bug report. The solution is for the compiler to notice the memory > > > alignment of the destination and `do-the-right-thing' when it isn't > > > aligned. > > > > No it is not, once you take the address (which should be rejected), it > > is of type "unsigned int *" and not unaligned variable, passing it to > > memcpy assumes the type alignment is the natural alignment. > > That argument doesn't make sense to me.
It is nevertheless correct. Examine all of the parts of the expression. In particular, "&s->b". What type does it have? In an ideal world, it would be "pointer to unaligned integer". But we have no such type in our type system, so it is "pointer to integer". This expression is ONLY THEN passed to memcpy. At which point we query the argument for its alignment, and get the non-intuitive result. If you instead pass "s" to memcpy, you should get the correct unaligned copy. If that isn't happening, that's a bug. r~
