On Tue, 3 Apr 2012, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > Yes, either way I suppose. The following also looks dangerous to me: > > > > /* If OFFSET is making OP0 more aligned than BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT, > > record its alignment as BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT. */ > > if (MEM_P (op0) && bitpos == 0 && offset != 0 > > && is_aligning_offset (offset, tem)) > > set_mem_align (op0, BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT); > > > > Maybe we can fall through most of the rest of the function if we > > canonicalized in the above way? Eric? > > Probably not, I'm afraid. I agree that the above call to set_mem_align is > potentially problematic if we previously allocated the temp. Moreover, I > think that the other temp allocation around line 9840 is problematic too. > > On the other hand, we could avoid skipping set_mem_attributes entirely by > passing the type instead of the expression. > > So I'd set a flag for the first temp allocation, skip the set_mem_align call > if > it is set and pass the type instead of the expression in the final call to > set_mem_attributes if it is set. And I'd handle the second temp allocation > independently and pass the type here too.
Yeah, that sounds reasonable. Richard.
