Incorrect bitfield aliasing with Tree SSA

[Daniel Berlin]

On 6/18/07, Richard Kenner <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote:
> > They are the alias set mechanism, which you don't seem to understand.
> > They always have been.
>
> I certainly understand the alias set mechanism.  It sounded like you were
> talking about something else since if the only thing we're using is alias
> sets, I'm mystified as to what the issue is.
>
> > I'd rather not explain all of alias.c to you in an email message, to
> > be honest
>
> As I said, I completely understand alias.c.

You clearly do not

>   It sounded like you were
> trying to do something OUTSIDE of that.
>
> So let's start again: why is it suddenly necessary that their be a
> hierarchy of alias sets when no fields are addressable?  If I have
>         struct foo {int a: 1; int b: 1;};
>
> why do we need more than one alias set?  Who is it that requires any
> subsetting at all?  Certainly nothing in alias.c does.
I'm not going through this again, i'm just going to fix the problem.
I've wasted enough time on this.

>