On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 01:05:08PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Olivier Hainque <hain...@adacore.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Apr 3, 2012, at 16:34 , Olivier Hainque wrote:
> >> Thanks a lot for following up on this one. Coincidentally, I was just
> >> about to submit the alternate approach we had discussed about, after
> >> David's comment at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-11/msg01842.html.
> >
> >> This is of course a much heavier hammer so it would be nice if we can
> >> indeed have a subtler way out :-)
> >
> >  To clarify: the heavier approach is the one I was about to submit
> >  (minor variation of Joseph's proposal in the thread just referenced),
> >  and the subtler way out is the one you are proposing here.
> We can give Alan's patch a try.  I'm not sure if it is sufficient
> given the experience of IBM's XL compiler.  I also would rather not
> use the heavier hammer, but I don't want to leave a latent bug.

I'll see whether my approach fixes pr30282 for gcc-4.4 which has known
deficiencies in alias analysis.  Olivier, would you be kind enough to
backport and test against other versions of gcc that needed your
bigger hammer?

Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM

Reply via email to