This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: MEM_COPY_ATTRIBUTES
- To: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu
- Subject: Re: MEM_COPY_ATTRIBUTES
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 10:18:33 -0700
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <10005031708.AA27028@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Kenner <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> writes:
Richard> What about the case where we make a MEM with a PUT_CODE?
Richard> That's the case (in alter_reg) that started me thinking
Richard> in this direction.
If the resulting MEM is not being put in alias set zero (and it may be
just because MEMs are bigger than REGs if REGs are zerod when they're
created, but that's a pretty hokey way of initializing MEM_ALIAS_SET),
then that sounds like a definite bug. The safe change is to put it in
alias set zero explicitly
If you can convince yourself that it's correct to use the alias set of
the other MEM, then you can do that instead.
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com