This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Incorrect bitfield aliasing with Tree SSA
> Wouldn't this be as simple as assigning the type of
> DECL_NONADDRESSABLE_P fields to a different alias set than the alias
> set of the type.
No. You assign those fields precisely to the alias set of the type of
the record that it's in. Why would you want to make a new type?
> Subset this alias set with that of its parent. This
> alias set would still conflict with anybody potentially referencing
> the parent (which would fix the bitfield issue) but would not conflict
> with the alias set of the type of the field (which is what the Ada
> folks are after)?
I'm having trouble parsing this. For one thing, the C bitfield cases
and the Ada non-aliased cases are *identical*: in both cases, a pointer to
the type of the field can't conflict with a reference to the type of
the struct.