On 6/18/07, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> wrote:
> > If it was designed properly in the first place, there simply would *be
> > no problem at the tree level*, because nothing would have broken.
>
> That's certainly a point of view. The other is that the RTL implementation
> predates the Tree one, works fine in GCC 3.x, including for the C compiler.
> One would have thought that the Tree implementation would be aware of it
> instead of overlooking it, given that alias.c is shared among them.
Uh, except as we've discovered, the RTL uses alias set 0, so whatever
alias set you choose for these doesn't matter anyway to the RTL level.
>
> > So far you guys have resisted what seem like perfectly reasonable
> > solutions by Adam
>
> You mean the patch that would have disabled the whole thing at the RTL level?
> I'm sure that we can devise something better.
No i mean the idea of making it a different alias set than the parent,
but a subset of the parent.