This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] tree-mustalias fix
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
- Cc: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>, Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 01:57:32 -0700
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] tree-mustalias fix
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <20031219204859.GG11784@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>, Jan Hubicka write
s:
>> On Fri, 2003-12-19 at 15:20, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>
>> > I just tested the idea of not considering (plus_expr (addr_expr) (cst))
>> > as gimple invariant and it solves testcase (full testing is in progress)
>> > and surprisingly enough it also improve Gerald's testcase:
>> >
>> But that's wrong. We will not consider that a constant, which may
>> prevent propagation of address constants. This is covering over the
>> problem.
>This still looks inconsistent for me.
Huh?
&x + <const>
is clearly an invariant. What would be inconsistent would be claiming
that it is not invariant as you proposed.
Jeff