This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: emit_group_store vs complex
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: emit_group_store vs complex
- From: Geoff Keating <geoffk at cygnus dot com>
- Date: 08 Aug 2000 00:28:19 -0700
- CC: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <20000807013756.A27352@cygnus.com>
Richard Henderson <rth@cygnus.com> writes:
> The problem is that emit_group_store forces /s set, no matter
> what the incoming memory says it's supposed to be. This is
> clearly a recipe for disaster. And there's a comment that
> says that the reason we make that change is because store_bit_field
> will abort otherwise. And as far as I can tell, there's no
> reason for store_bit_field to do that except to try to catch
> presumed bugs elsewhere in the compiler.
Hmmm. Can anyone say what MEM_IN_STRUCT_P is _for_?
I can't think of anything, other than alias analysis which is surely
much better handled by the frontend. What impact could
MEM_IN_STRUCT_P possibly have on the generated code?
--
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@cygnus.com>