This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: rtx_unchanging_p vs c++ vtable fields
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- To: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 14:17:46 -0800
- Subject: Re: rtx_unchanging_p vs c++ vtable fields
- References: <10112092117.AA14541@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 04:17:33PM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> Just to make sure we mean the same thing, I mean TREE_READONLY on the
I didn't think the field was marked TREE_READONLY, but I don't
know for sure. It doesn't get marked readonly at the point of
creation, but that doesn't mean it doesn't get set elsewhere.
I'm in the middle of debugging something else, so I don't want
to go check this right now.
> I think we may well have to ignore /u when seeing if two stores conflict.
That would fix the immediate problem, yes.
I think we should get rid of /u. It is _way_ too error prone.
I'll claim that virtually all of the benefit can be gained by
proper use of alias sets, and if there's anything left oh well.