------- Comment #15 from anemo at mba dot ocn dot ne dot jp 2006-07-18 16:53 ------- (In reply to comment #14) > This is because it's an incoming parameter, and as a result, this > doesn't look at all like an array access, but just a random pointer access. > > I have no plans to make the alias analysis algorithm reconstruct array > indexes from random pointer arithmetic.
I do not think reconstructing array indexes are needed, but is it hard to tell that *(a+0) never be an alias of *(a+1) ? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20643
