Re: Semi-Latent Bug in tree vectorizer

[Jeffrey A Law <law at redhat dot com>]

On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 13:55 -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 10:52:02AM -0600, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> 
> > It would probably be wise to audit the other uses of 
> > copy_virtual_operands.  We might also consider forcing statement
> > rescans as part of our IL checking code to avoid these kinds of
> > problems in the future.
> > 
> Yes, I've run into this problem and am about to commit fixes in
> this area.
Can you send me your pending changes it would be good to know if
they're going to fix my problem or not.  Or are you just referring
to changes which force statement rescans?


> Both ivopts and the vectorizer were creating bad memory tags for
> the new pointers.
Which could be the root cause of my problem.


>  Also, after ivopts, the whole CFG needs to be
> re-scanned because the new alias relations it creates affect
> statements that have not even been modified by the process.
Wow.  Egad.

Jeff