--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-04 09:14
---
Subject: Re: Unaligned access to fields inside packed records
> Could you tell on what grounds? AFAICS all fields are still addressable.
Not really, they aren't. I've argued in the past that we should eithe
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-04
05:17 ---
> The Ada compiler may do it, but the C compiler does not. This test case,
> written in C, is invalid.
Could you tell on what grounds? AFAICS all fields are still addressable.
--
What|
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-03 23:16
---
The Ada compiler may do it, but the C compiler does not. This test case,
written in C, is invalid.
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-02
17:20 ---
> Are we really forced to support ADDR_EXPR on unaligned fields? How would you
> fix it with a temporary? Are you going to generate a FINALLY_EXPR to copy the
> contents of the temporary back into the or
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-01-02
16:45 ---
Are we really forced to support ADDR_EXPR on unaligned fields? How would you
fix it with a temporary? Are you going to generate a FINALLY_EXPR to copy the
contents of the temporary back into the original fi
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-02
11:11 ---
.t03.generic is already wrong:
Clobber_Hour_Of (dt)
{
struct Time_T * D.1122;
D.1122 = &dt->Time;
Assign_Hour_Of (D.1122);
}
struct Time_T is 32-bit aligned so D.1122 must be a multiple of 4; as s
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-02
11:03 ---
Clobber_Hour_Of:
save%sp, -112, %sp
st %i0, [%fp+68]
ld [%fp+68], %g1
add %g1, 5, %g1
mov %g1, %o0
callAssign_Hour_Of, 0
n
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-02
10:57 ---
Reconfirmed with gcc version 4.0.0 20050101 (experimental) at -O0 on SPARC
32-bit.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From wintermute101 at wp dot pl 2004-11-04 16:54 ---
I write here cause it's simmilar situation as reported here but I have no data
about other gcc versions than 3.3.2.
I have following:
/
define _aligned(n) __attribute__((aligned(n), packed))
s
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-03 19:57
---
There is another example of this in PR 17949 where the tree-optimizations cause
something werid to
happen only because the middle-end does not know that they are unaligned loads.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-03 18:17
---
> t->Hour = 44; /* unaligned word access */
> is unaligned word access if t is not word aligned in the first place, correct
> which is where the problem comes in right?
I confirm that the bus error (no
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-03 18:03
---
t->Hour = 44; /* unaligned word access */
is unaligned word access if t is not word aligned in the first place, correct which is
where the problem
comes in right?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-03 18:02
---
Are you sure that 4.0.0 does not work, as it no longer does the transformation for
&(a->b) into a +
offsetof(a,b).
>From the last tree dump for 4.0.0:
;; Function Assign_Hour_Of (Assign_Hour_Of)
Assign_Ho
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-03 17:53
---
Created an attachment (id=7467)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7467&action=view)
Testcase.
To be compiled with -O0.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18287
14 matches
Mail list logo
