https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84525
--- Comment #6 from Zhao Chun ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> I wrote it above. memcpy or packed struct. And there is no reason to think
> about memcpy as something inefficient, GCC will turn those single element
> memcpy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84525
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I wrote it above. memcpy or packed struct. And there is no reason to think
about memcpy as something inefficient, GCC will turn those single element
memcpy calls into efficient unaligned loads or stores.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84525
--- Comment #4 from Zhao Chun ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> (In reply to Zhao Chun from comment #2)
> > Thanks for you explain.
> > It looks some weird to me.
> > If the type was int64_t or others, this can work.
>
> No, it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84525
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Zhao Chun from comment #2)
> Thanks for you explain.
> It looks some weird to me.
> If the type was int64_t or others, this can work.
No, it would be invalid too. It may appear to work.
> Is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84525
--- Comment #2 from Zhao Chun ---
Thanks for you explain.
It looks some weird to me.
If the type was int64_t or others, this can work.
Is there some specs to say that __int128 is 16-byte aligned?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84525
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
