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
Australia Development Lab, IBM