matthew green wrote:

>    what happens if you make store_ptr() not an inline?
> 
> then store_ptr becomes a real function that uses unaligned stores,
> probably working.  i wonder the effect this has on program startup
> since it generates between 7 and 10 extra instructions (including
> a branch & return.)

Note that gcc inlines store_ptr() anyway with -O2.  Using -fno-inline
"worked", as in store_ptr() then does use unaligned loads/stores (as
Matt noted).

Simon.