On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Andreas Krebbel <kreb...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On 12/20/2016 11:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Andreas Krebbel >> <kreb...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >>> When pushing a value into the literal pool the resulting decl might >>> get a higher alignment than the original expression depending on how a >>> target defines CONSTANT_ALIGNMENT. Generating an RTX for the constant >>> pool access we currently use the alignment from the original >>> expression. Changed with the attached patch. >> >> And it might be even smaller alignment... or do we not allow that? > I did assume that this is not supposed to happen. Adding an assertion > triggering in that case > survived bootstrap and testsuite. s390x only. It basically boils down to > whether align_variable and > set_mem_attributes/get_object_alignment come to different conclusions about > the alignment starting > at either the var decl or the original expression. > > ... >>> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64 and s390x. >>> >>> No regressions. >>> >>> Ok? >> >> Ok. >> >> Richard. > > Ok for GCC 6 branch as well?
Yes. Richard. > -Andreas- > >
