[tree-ssa] tree-mustalias fix

law@redhat.com law@redhat.com
Wed Jan 7 08:58:00 GMT 2004

In message <20031219204859.GG11784@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>, Jan Hubicka write
 >> On Fri, 2003-12-19 at 15:20, Jan Hubicka wrote:
 >> > I just tested the idea of not considering (plus_expr (addr_expr) (cst))
 >> > as gimple invariant and it solves testcase (full testing is in progress)
 >> > and surprisingly enough it also improve Gerald's testcase:
 >> >
 >> But that's wrong.  We will not consider that a constant, which may
 >> prevent propagation of address constants.  This is covering over the
 >> problem.
 >This still looks inconsistent for me.

&x + <const> 

is clearly an invariant.  What would be inconsistent would be claiming
that it is not invariant as you proposed.


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list