https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65215
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Created attachment 34879 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34879&action=edit gcc5-pr65215.patch Untested fix. There are still issues left, e.g. I can't understand the "bswap &&" part in if (bswap && align < GET_MODE_ALIGNMENT (TYPE_MODE (load_type)) && SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS (TYPE_MODE (load_type), align)) return false; Don't you use the new MEM_REF even for the !bswap (aka nop) case? So, I don't see how it would be safe to generate that. And the testsuite coverage of this is definitely suboptimal, from endianity POV, bitfields etc.
