This is the mail archive of the gcc@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]

Re: Aliasing violation generated by fold_builtin_memcmp?

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: Olivier Hainque <hainque at adacore dot com>
Cc: Ulrich Weigand <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:46:59 -0700
Subject: Re: Aliasing violation generated by fold_builtin_memcmp?
References: <200509300008.j8U08IT3029381@53v30g15.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <20050930012951.GA17884@redhat.com> <20050930112323.A22144@rome.act-europe.fr>

On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 11:23:23AM +0200, Olivier Hainque wrote:
>  We are seeing regressions in our local testsuite on cases exercising
>  that pragma.

Hmm.

>  The 'tag alias set should be zero if ...' idea above seems logical to me.
>  I still may well not yet see a number of other options.

Perhaps we should instead get rid of this flag and instead
represent this as a variant of the pointed-to type with the
alias set forced to zero.  It does seem odd that there are
two ways to represent this...

r~

References:
- Aliasing violation generated by fold_builtin_memcmp?
  - From: Ulrich Weigand
- Re: Aliasing violation generated by fold_builtin_memcmp?
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: Aliasing violation generated by fold_builtin_memcmp?
  - From: Olivier Hainque

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]