This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: wrong alias-analysis and strange x86-code

To: Bernd Schmidt <bernds at redhat dot co dot uk>
Subject: Re: wrong alias-analysis and strange x86-code
From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 10:15:57 -0700
Cc: Volker Barthelmann <vb at compilers dot de>, gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
References: <00102421135600.00901@vb.franken.de> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0010251645480.20333-100000@host117.cygnus>

On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 04:52:14PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > int x,*p=&x;
> > 
> > main()
> > {
> >  int i=0;
> >  x=1;
> >  p[i]=2;
> >  printf("%d\n",x);
> > }

Would you transform this into an executable test case as well?

> 	* expr.c (expand_expr, case INDIRECT_REF): If the address is a
> 	PLUS, that does not prove the object is in a structure.

Ok.

>  	/* If address was computed by addition,
>  	   mark this as an element of an aggregate.  */

The comment is now wrong, btw.


r~

References:
- wrong alias-analysis and strange x86-code
  - From: Volker Barthelmann
- Re: wrong alias-analysis and strange x86-code
  - From: Bernd Schmidt

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]