GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-03-22)

[Richard Kenner]

> One thing that I'm wondering about this patch is why hasn't this been
> done before?  We seem to purposely separate TREE_ADDRESSABLE from
> ADDR_EXPR.  Perhaps to prevent pessimistic assumptions?  The current
> aliasing code removes addressability when it can prove otherwise.

One concern I have in marking a DECL addressable that early on is that
it may stay "stuck" even if the ADDR_EXPR is later eliminated.  This can
be common in inlined situations, I thought.

We *do* have to make up our mind, of course, on a precise time when it's
set and be very clear about whether we can reset it (and how) if we
discover later that the address actually isn't being taken.