Re: [PATCH] Re-work get_object_alignment (again)

2012-07-20 Thread Richard Guenther
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: On 2012.07.17 at 15:10 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: Comments welcome, of course. This patch apparently miscompiles the Linux kernel, which just hangs during early boot: ... SLUB: Genslabs=15, HWalign=64, Order=0-3, MinObjects=0, CPUs=4,

Re: [PATCH] Re-work get_object_alignment (again)

2012-07-19 Thread Markus Trippelsdorf
On 2012.07.17 at 15:10 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: Comments welcome, of course. This patch apparently miscompiles the Linux kernel, which just hangs during early boot: ... SLUB: Genslabs=15, HWalign=64, Order=0-3, MinObjects=0, CPUs=4, Nodes=1 Hierarchical RCU implementation. NR_IRQS:4352

Re: [PATCH] Re-work get_object_alignment (again)

2012-07-18 Thread Eric Botcazou
Now, back to PR53970, where #pragma pack() is used to pack a struct. With #pragma pack() no part of the type or field-decls have a hint that packing took place (well, their align information tell you), which means the vectorizers use of contains_packed_reference is not conservative enough,

[PATCH] Re-work get_object_alignment (again)

2012-07-17 Thread Richard Guenther
I've arrived at get_object_{or_type,}alignment again looking at PR53970. And I finally concluded we should unconditionally relying on type-alignment on INDIRECT/MEM/TARGET_MEM_REF when we ask for the alignment of an access (as opposed to when asking for the alignment of an address). So the