On 10/08/2018 07:38 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 8, 2018, at 1:29 PM, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/08/2018 06:20 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
>>> Only if you somewhere visibly add accesses to *i and *j. Without them you
>>> only have the "accesses" via memcpy, and as Richi says, those don't imply
>>> any alignment requirements. The i and j pointers might validly be char*
>>> pointers in disguise and hence be in fact only 1-aligned. I.e. there's
>>> nothing in your small example program from which GCC can infer that those
>>> two global pointers are in fact 2-aligned.
>>
>> So all you'd actually have to say is
>>
>> void f1(void)
>> {
>> *i; *j;
>> __builtin_memcpy (i, j, 32);
>> }
>
> No, that doesn't help.
It could do.
> Not even if I make it:
>
> void f1(void)
> {
> k = *i + *j;
> __builtin_memcpy (i, j, 4);
> }
>
> The first line does word aligned references to *i and *j, but the memcpy
> stubbornly remains a byte move.
Right, so that is a missed optimization.
--
Andrew Haley
Java Platform Lead Engineer
Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com>
EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671
