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
> 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.