https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65215
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > Created attachment 34879 [details] > 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. I suggested that change (remove bswap &&) multiple times, but it got lost appearantly. (I even remember applying that change myself!?)
