This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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] |
On 07/20/2016 10:54 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
And those optimizations probably aren't safe in the presence of alloca implemented on top of malloc. They are safe for the built-in alloca though.Yes. That is another interesting observation. I think, originally this flag was introduced by Jan Hubicka, and should mean, "it may be alloca or a weak alias to alloca or maybe even something different". But some of the later optimizations use it in a way as if it meant "it must be alloca". However I have not been able to come up with a test case that makes this assumption false, but I probably just did not try hard enough. But I think that alloca just should not be recognized by name any more.
jeff
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |