This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc3 vs 176.gcc
- From: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot COM>
- To: jbuck at synopsys dot COM (Joe Buck)
- Cc: rth at redhat dot com (Richard Henderson),geoffk at redhat dot com (Geoff Keating), dalej at apple dot com (Dale Johannesen),gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 12:44:19 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: gcc3 vs 176.gcc
I wrote:
> I think that the check happens too late if it is done this way.
> Better to detect that the rules are broken at the time of tree->RTL
> conversion. In the 176.gcc case, as soon as we parse
>
> ((int *)rt)[length]
>
> and note that the type of rt is not pointer to (possibly cv-qualified)
> int or unsigned, we know already that the rules have been broken,
> independent of what the backend is.
What if we tell the back end that such a pointer expression (one that
breaks the rules) is a pointer to char*, or aliases like one? (can
collide with anything)?