gcc 4.3.2 vectorizes access to volatile array

[Till Straumann]

gcc-4.3.2 seems to produce bad code when
accessing an array of small 'volatile'
objects -- it may try to access multiple
such objects in a 'parallel' fashion.
E.g., instead of reading two consecutive
'volatile short's sequentially it reads
a single 32-bit longword. This may crash
e.g., when accessing a memory-mapped device
which allows only 16-bit accesses.

If I compile this code fragment

void volarrcpy(short *d, volatile short *s, int n)
{
int i;
 for (i=0; i<n; i++)
   d[i] = s[i];
}


with '-O3' (the critical option seems to be '-ftree-vectorize')
then gcc-4.3.2 produces quite complicated code
but the essential section is (powerpc)

.L7:
   lhz 0,0(11)
   addi 11,11,2
   lwzx 0,4,9
   stwx 0,3,9
   addi 9,9,4
   bdnz .L7

or i386

.L7:
   movw    (%ecx), %ax
   movl    (%esi,%edx,4), %eax
   movl    %eax, (%ebx,%edx,4)
   incl    %edx
   addl    $2, %ecx
   cmpl    %edx, -20(%ebp)
   ja  .L7


Disassembled back into C-code, this reads

uint32_t *dst_l = (uint32_t*)d;
uint32_t *src_l = (uint32_t*)s;

for (i=0; i<n/2; i++) {
   d[i]     = s[i];
   dst_l[i] = src_l[i];
}

This code seems neither optimal nor correct.
Besides reading half of the locations twice
which violates the semantics of volatile
objects accessing such objects in a 'vectorized'
way (in this case: instead of reading
two adjacent short addresses gcc emits
a single 32-bit read) seems illegal to me.

Similar behavior seems to be present in 4.3.3.

Does anybody have some insight? Should I file
a bug report?

Regards
-- Till

PS: I'm not subscribed to the gcc mailing list;
please CC me on any replies, thanks.