Re: [PR55547] fix alias regression on alpha on misaligned symbols

[Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>]

On 2013-01-16 18:40, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > That said, I question the change of <= to == 0.  If negative, we don't
> > know how much overlap there is as far as I can see.
>
> Why not?  Since the addresses are constants, and the negative sizes are
> just the adjusted sizes, negated to indicate they were conservatively
> lengthened by an alignment operation...

Oh, right.

> > This hunk is not needed, as we begin by eliminating <= 0.  So the abs
> > is certain to do nothing.
>
> The function I'll introduce to keep the expressions the same will have
> the abs and I'll use it here, but you're right that after testing for
> negative sizes they abses won't make much of a difference.

Sure.


r~