This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] Out of SSA status and issues
- From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- To: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>
- Cc: Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com>,gcc mailing list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: 13 May 2003 08:42:31 -0400
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] Out of SSA status and issues
- Organization: Red Hat Canada
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0305131105500.15564-100000@wotan.suse.de>
On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 05:07, Michael Matz wrote:
> An indirect reference is not a copy. I don't know if tree-ssa thinks it
> is, but it definitely shouldn't.
>
Why?
1. foo()
2. {
3. int i, *p;
4.
5. p = malloc();
6. i = *p;
7. return i + 9;
8. }
I see nothing wrong in replacing 'i + 9' with '*p + 9'. It would
probably not be efficient, but I can't see it being wrong.
Not that tree-ssa will do anything with this code, the default
type-based aliasing is too conservative, but PTA may disambiguate this.
Diego.