Re: in search of clue regarding -fcheck-memory-usage

[Tristan Gingold <tgi at netgem dot com>]

On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 12:38:32PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >>>>> "Zack" == Zack Weinberg <zackw@stanford.edu> writes:
> 
>     Zack> My major concern is that up till now 'reg' had been
>     Zack> destructively replaced by a MEM rtx before we got here.  My
>     Zack> changes are going to postpone that until after we're done
>     Zack> generating RTL.  So XEXP (reg, 0) is now an invalid
>     Zack> operation.  What should I be replacing it with?
> 
> An ADDRESSOF?  Isn't what the thing wants in the end -- the address of
> some memory?  So, you can use ADDRESSOF (REG), and then rely on the
> ADDRESSOF pass to insert this stuff later.
> 
> This is part of why I objected to the design of the -fcheck-memory
> stuff; it is too interleaved with ordinary compiler processing.  It
> should be a separate pass -- either on trees or RTL.
Being at the origin of the -fcheck-memory patches, I agree with you: it is too
interleaved.  I think a separate pass on tree is the right way to do the job
(RTL is really too late), but is there a single point of entry ?

If it is possible to do this pass, I am ready to write it.

Tristan.