This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: must_alias question
> On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 19:47, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 16:44, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > >
> > > > The bug is probably reason for the FIXME disabling the function for
> > > > pointer types BTW :)
> > > >
> > > Bonus!
> > >
> > >
> > > > I will test all the changes I cumulated for mustalias pass.
> > > > I think we can kill ADDRESSOF beast now that will make things a lot
> > > > easier.
> > > >
> > > OK. I'm very interested in these changes. We need to be able to remove
> > > the FIXME in promote_var safely. Otherwise, we miss several
> > > scalarizations that are important to finish fixing PR 12747.
> >
> > I think I noticed another must_alias bug. flor local static variables we
> > may suceed to elliminate all ADDR_EXPRs for given variable in one inline
> > copy, but not in the otehrs, so the function remains call clobbered.
> > Does disabling promote_vars for static functions look like the way to
> > go?
> >
> You mean 'static variables' here?
>
> So, we are promoting a static variable in some instantiations of an
> inlined function and not in others? Hmm, perhaps we could just refrain
Yes.
> from clearing the TREE_ADDRESSABLE bit. Do you have a test case?
No, I found this during proofreading the code, but it is not dificult to produce one.
Honza
>
>
> Diego.