--- Comment #11 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-28 08:04 ---
"fixed" though 38985 still holds.
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Stat
--- Comment #10 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-28 08:02 ---
Subject: Bug 38984
Author: bonzini
Date: Wed Jan 28 08:02:31 2009
New Revision: 143721
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143721
Log:
gcc:
2009-01-28 Paolo Bonzini
PR tree-optimization/38984
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38984
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-27 12:29 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] NULL
pointers always considered distinct by PTA, even with
-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #8 from bonzini at
--- Comment #8 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-27 12:27 ---
>From PR38985:
> These passes are able to propagate the address to the load: CCP, VRP, DOM.
> If
> we decide that it's an invalid transformation, fixing them would fix this bug.
The interesting part is that after you di
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 12:13 ---
Note that for *(int *)0 = 5 the gimplifier inserts a temporary.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38984
--- Comment #6 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-27 11:15 ---
The issue with the operand scanner is now PR38985
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38984
--- Comment #5 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-27 11:09 ---
I don't think CCPing of the "null" variable is a problem. Writing it as "*(int
*)0 = 5" would not make the testcase invalid.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38984
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2009-01-27 11:08 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] NULL pointers always considered distinct
by PTA, even with -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 27, 2009, at 3:02 AM, "bonzini at gnu dot org" wrote:
>
>
>
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 27, 2009, at 3:02 AM, "bonzini at gnu dot org" > wrote:
--- Comment #1 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-27 11:02
---
This simple patch is not enough:
Index: tree-ssa-structalias.c
===
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 11:06 ---
hm, or rather, we CCP into null ... which makes this an operand scanner issue.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38984
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 11:06 ---
Can you fill in a known-to-work version?
ANYTHING = &ANYTHING
ESCAPED = *ESCAPED
NONLOCAL = &ESCAPED
INTEGER = &ANYTHING
derefaddrtmp.8 = &NONLOCAL
*ESCAPED = derefaddrtmp.8
p = &NONLOCAL
misses a constraint for nu
--- Comment #1 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-27 11:02 ---
This simple patch is not enough:
Index: tree-ssa-structalias.c
===
--- tree-ssa-structalias.c (revision 142960)
+++ tree-ssa-structalias.c (working c
13 matches
Mail list logo