This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: must_alias question
On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 19:47, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 16:44, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >
> > > The bug is probably reason for the FIXME disabling the function for
> > > pointer types BTW :)
> > >
> > Bonus!
> >
> >
> > > I will test all the changes I cumulated for mustalias pass.
> > > I think we can kill ADDRESSOF beast now that will make things a lot
> > > easier.
> > >
> > OK. I'm very interested in these changes. We need to be able to remove
> > the FIXME in promote_var safely. Otherwise, we miss several
> > scalarizations that are important to finish fixing PR 12747.
>
> I think I noticed another must_alias bug. flor local static variables we
> may suceed to elliminate all ADDR_EXPRs for given variable in one inline
> copy, but not in the otehrs, so the function remains call clobbered.
> Does disabling promote_vars for static functions look like the way to
> go?
>
You mean 'static variables' here?
So, we are promoting a static variable in some instantiations of an
inlined function and not in others? Hmm, perhaps we could just refrain
from clearing the TREE_ADDRESSABLE bit. Do you have a test case?
Diego.