https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65215
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #7) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6) > > I can certainly remove that hunk from the patch, if the expander and other > > passes handle it well. The test can stay I guess. > > Things are at least working on x86 (obviously), ARM and SPARC (after > PR61320's fix). Also this code is there since a long time without any bug > report problems due to unalignment. Ok. > One question about the patch: is there a reason not to use n->range instead > of GET_MODE_BITSIZE (TYPE_MODE (load_type))? Supposedly that can be used too, that should probably always be the case.
