[Bug d/90065] Unaligned accesses on strict-alignment targets

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90065

Richard Biener  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Keywords||wrong-code
   Target Milestone|9.5 |---

[Bug d/90065] Unaligned accesses on strict-alignment targets

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90065

Richard Biener  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5

--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener  ---
GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.

[Bug d/90065] Unaligned accesses on strict-alignment targets

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90065

Jakub Jelinek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Target Milestone|9.3 |9.4

--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek  ---
GCC 9.3.0 has been released, adjusting target milestone.

[Bug d/90065] Unaligned accesses on strict-alignment targets

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90065

Jakub Jelinek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Target Milestone|9.2 |9.3

--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek  ---
GCC 9.2 has been released.

[Bug d/90065] Unaligned accesses on strict-alignment targets

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90065

Jakub Jelinek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Target Milestone|9.0 |9.2

--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek  ---
GCC 9.1 has been released.

[Bug d/90065] Unaligned accesses on strict-alignment targets

[ibuclaw at gdcproject dot org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90065

--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw  ---
I have my suspicions that the following code will throw an unaligned access
error as well.

shared int var;
void main() {
  synchronized { var = 1; }
}


As synchronized statements are lowered to the following equivalent C.

static char __critsec64[48];
_d_criticalenter(& __critsec64);
var = 0;
_d_criticalexit(& __critsec64);


Just going off memory, but I don't think the artificial __critsec variable
would be suitably aligned for use as a pthread_mutex_t.

[Bug d/90065] Unaligned accesses on strict-alignment targets

[ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90065

ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #1 from ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org ---
What about using a union instead of type-punning here?

[Bug d/90065] Unaligned accesses on strict-alignment targets

[ro at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90065

Rainer Orth  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Target Milestone|--- |9.0