https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93808
--- Comment #21 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #20) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #19) > > t = (const uintptr_t *)(e - (4 -1)); > > > > is problemantic though. e is not known to be aligned to uintptr_t. > > That's right. But it makes me wonder, why this has been discovered only on > SH with, seemingly caused by fcross-jumping optimization option. There are > other more popular strict-alignment targets like ARM ... something is > smelly, I think. I think it is more by accident. strict-alginment here should not make a difference really as it is undefined even on non-strict targets. fcross-jumping in this case causes the BB that contains __builtin_unreachable to go to an invalid basic-block which is valid optimization which just happens on sh and for some reason not arm or other targets. I have not looked into the code or even the RTL to double check this theory though.
