http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29751
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25
09:14:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Created attachment 25847 [details]
more correct patch
An updated patch which is more correct than the previous patch and it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29751
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29751
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #18307|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29751
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-23
22:09:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Created attachment 18307 [details]
Patch which I am testing
There is one bug in that patch which I have a fix for.
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-05 17:52 ---
Created an attachment (id=18307)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18307action=view)
Patch which I am testing
This patch fixes the problem including a+1 and a+2 not aliasing each other.
It adds two
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-09 02:35 ---
I have a simple patch (which needs some cleanups but it works).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-07 08:51 ---
Only if you extend refs_may_alias_p, as for pointers you have
p_2 = p_1 + 1;
*p_2
*p_1
and it doesn't follow def-use chains to see the pointer-plus to disambiguate
both pointer de-references. With arrays you
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-07 01:28 ---
Hmm, if we change r to be an array, fre does the correct thing but shouldn't it
do the correct thing for the non array case too?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29751
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-14 21:21 ---
Related to PR34172, but not fixed. MEM_REF will get this right as we
effectively
have array refs on pointers there.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 00:30 ---
Confirmed, this is only a tree level missed optimization.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-14 01:06 ---
This is a problem of our VOPs not having base+offset and has nothing to do with
restrict.
int f(int *r)
{
r[0] = 0;
r[1] = 0;
if(r[0]) foo();
}
is enough to reproduce the issue. Also I think there might be
11 matches
Mail list logo
