On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 03/29/2013 11:24 AM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: > >>> At what point did we stop setting clear_alias_sets? Was that >>> intentional or not? >> >> >> I do not know the answer to either question. > > That's what needs to be determined before I'll approve. It means digging a > bit. > > > >> My view is that we have already lost the feature. The code >> that populates the set is gone. The remaining code has probably >> suffered bitrot because it is not being tested. Trying to recreate >> the population will probably result in inconsistencies anyway, >> necessitating a rewrite of the remaining code. So, the remaining >> code has little value, and might have negative value. > > But that doesn't mean dropping the code is the right thing to do. The right > thing to do is see if the feature was dropped on purpose. If so, then we > remove this dead code. If not, then we fix the real problem, namely the > code was accidentally disabled (and add suitable tests to the suite to catch > this kind of problem in the future).
It's left over cleanups from code removed last year: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-03/msg01862.html I like the patch. Ciao! Steven