This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

[Bug ipa/65270] issues with merging memory accesses from different code paths


https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65270

--- Comment #29 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65270
> 
> --- Comment #26 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> I completely missed the discussion concerning restrict. I opened PR65330 with
> that testcase.  We can check in the following way:
> Index: ipa-icf.c
> ===================================================================
> --- ipa-icf.c   (revision 221223)
> +++ ipa-icf.c   (working copy)
> @@ -359,6 +359,13 @@ sem_item::compare_cgraph_references (
>      return return_false_with_msg
>              ("references to virtual tables can not be merged");
> 
> +  if (is_a <varpool_node *> (n1)
> +      && POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (n1->decl))
> +      && TYPE_RESTRICT (TREE_TYPE (n1->decl))
> +        != TYPE_RESTRICT (TREE_TYPE (n2->decl)))
> +    return return_false_with_msg
> +            ("references have different restirct flags");
> +
>    if (address && n1->equal_address_to (n2) == 1)
>      return true;
>    if (!address && n1->semantically_equivalent_p (n2))
> 
> but I suppose with strong enough restrict handling, we want to actually walk
> the type and match restrict flag in all contained pointers? Shall we track it
> in PR65330, too? It is a non-bug until the missed optimization is fixed.

Yes, let's track it there, too.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]