http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334



Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:



           What    |Removed                     |Added

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 CC|                            |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org



--- Comment #23 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-12-21 
14:27:18 UTC ---

In fact there are a few dependences we can solve:



191: versioning for alias required: can't determine dependence between

MEM[(real(kind=8)[0:D.1986] *)&x + 20247552B][_20] and

MEM[(real(kind=8)[0:D.1989] *)&x + 37823552B][_20]



from



Creating dr for MEM[(real(kind=8)[0:D.1986] *)&x + 20247552B][_20]

analyze_innermost: success.

        base_address: &x

        offset from base address: (ssizetype) ((sizetype) (((_7 - stride.11_6)

+ pretmp_791) + pretmp_813) * 8)

        constant offset from base address: 20247568

        step: 8

        aligned to: 8 

        base_object: MEM[(real(kind=8)[0:D.1986] *)&x + 20247552B]

        Access function 0: {{(stride.9_4 * 2 + pretmp_792) + 2, +,

stride.9_4}_2, +, 1}_3



and



Creating dr for MEM[(real(kind=8)[0:D.1983] *)&x][_20]

analyze_innermost: success.

        base_address: &x

        offset from base address: (ssizetype) ((sizetype) (((_7 - stride.11_6)

+ pretmp_791) + pretmp_813) * 8)

        constant offset from base address: 16

        step: 8

        aligned to: 8

        base_object: MEM[(real(kind=8)[0:D.1983] *)&x]

        Access function 0: {{(stride.9_4 * 2 + pretmp_792) + 2, +,

stride.9_4}_2, +, 1}_3



we hit:



  /* If the references do not access the same object, we do not know

     whether they alias or not.  */

  if (!operand_equal_p (DR_BASE_OBJECT (a), DR_BASE_OBJECT (b), 0))

    {

      DDR_ARE_DEPENDENT (res) = chrec_dont_know;

      return res;

    }



but for the case the access functions are the same we can conclude the

accesses cannot alias if the base_objects cannot alias (danger!  data-ref

does not record an "access size", so with the same access function

but only 1-byte offset in base_object this can lead to false disambiguations,

so it might in the end not be that easy ...)  This size issue is also

why we cannot translate the base_object internal offset into an access

function (see testcases I added for bugs we had there)

Reply via email to