[Bug middle-end/89208] unaligned access expanded to memcpy with -ffreestanding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89208 --- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #11) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10) > > This is documented this way: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-8.2.0/gcc/Standards.html#index- > >

[Bug middle-end/89208] unaligned access expanded to memcpy with -ffreestanding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89208 --- Comment #11 from Bernd Edlinger --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10) > This is documented this way: > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-8.2.0/gcc/Standards.html#index- > ffreestanding > > Most of the compiler support routines

[Bug middle-end/89208] unaligned access expanded to memcpy with -ffreestanding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89208 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/89208] unaligned access expanded to memcpy with -ffreestanding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89208 --- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger --- I would like to suppress the optimization when -ffreestanding, or fno-builtin, is used, but I agree that it will probably stretch -fno-loop-distribute-patterns a bit too much to cover this. OTOH

[Bug middle-end/89208] unaligned access expanded to memcpy with -ffreestanding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89208 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8

[Bug middle-end/89208] unaligned access expanded to memcpy with -ffreestanding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89208 --- Comment #7 from Bernd Edlinger --- both. but if you use -fno-tree-loop-distribute-pattern I'd bet people would not want memcpy when not having asked for...

[Bug middle-end/89208] unaligned access expanded to memcpy with -ffreestanding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89208 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #5) > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4) > > PR56888? > > Yes. So is this a dup or are you after sth else?

[Bug middle-end/89208] unaligned access expanded to memcpy with -ffreestanding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89208 --- Comment #5 from Bernd Edlinger --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4) > PR56888? Yes.

[Bug middle-end/89208] unaligned access expanded to memcpy with -ffreestanding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89208 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- PR56888?

[Bug middle-end/89208] unaligned access expanded to memcpy with -ffreestanding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89208 --- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger --- The problem is that this pattern may be used in the implementation of memcpy. But it reminds me much to what you did with -ftree-loop-distribute-patterns last year, and how it is enabled with

[Bug middle-end/89208] unaligned access expanded to memcpy with -ffreestanding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89208 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug middle-end/89208] unaligned access expanded to memcpy with -ffreestanding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89208 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||arm CC|