http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55072
--- Comment #19 from Paul Thomas <pault at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-01-09 13:16:59 UTC --- (In reply to comment #18) > (In reply to comment #17) > > (In reply to comment #16) > > > > Question is: Is the packing needed here? I would guess that it isn't. > > > > > > Of course I might be wrong here. After all, array_t3_ptr is a pointer, so > > > it's > > > not guaranteed to be contiguous, right? > > > > To answer that myself, I think the packing is indeed needed here. > In fact this is exactly the case of comment 0. So, yes, we definitely need the > packing! Dear Janus, R156749 was clearly an optimization too far. As far as correct code generation is concerned, you cannot have too many PACKs. Therefore, I would apply your regression fix, even if you are worried that it over-does it. Cheers Paul
