This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC Status Report (2004-03-09)
- From: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- To: jakub at redhat dot com
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 04 07:36:49 EST
- Subject: Re: GCC Status Report (2004-03-09)
That would be certainly safest and the UNCHANGING would really mean
unchanging. But I hope we could at least extend it to objects which are
*never* stored into in current function (see if the object is initialized
in the function currently expanded into RTL, if not, use RTX_UNCHANGING_P
for it as well, otherwise perhaps use some other bit or alias set).
I think so. Certainly that would be true for parameters in languages
where they can't be changed.
It seems the trickiest problems come when we try to define what
*writing* to "unchanging" memory means.