http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
--- Comment #20 from Bill Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> --- After thinking it over some more, I think you are right, Martin. We should go ahead with the optimization with the corrected alignment attached to the type. Please go ahead with your patch. I will run a round of regression testing on PowerPC (an architecture for which the generic test produces misaligned but legal memory references) as well. Sorry for going back and forth on this. I try to avoid wasting compile time on useless transformations, but in this case we will still see some benefit in some cases, and the code should be no worse than before when we don't. Thanks, Bill
