https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89479
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Tue, 26 Feb 2019, eyalroz at technion dot ac.il wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89479 > > --- Comment #5 from Eyal Rozenberg <eyalroz at technion dot ac.il> --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4) > > exposing __restrict to the IL). > > Is "IL" an acronym for "Intermediate Language"? Remember many bug > posters/readers are not GCC developers and don't know all the lingo. Yes. > > To elaborate further to successfully mark a function call > > with clique == 1 and base == 0 we have to prove the pointer marked restrict > > doesn't escape the function through calls > > Certainly, calling g() could be just the same as writing to an alias of the x > pointer. But - __restrict is how we guarantee this doesn't happen (or can be > ignored) even when the compiler can't prove that's the case on its own. So I'm > not sure I understand what you're suggesting with your comment. I suppose you > could try and "disprove the __restrict" to give a warning, but other than that > - why not just respect it? Well, "respecting" it means encoding it in the intermediate language which we don't at the moment for calls.
