Re: PR other/51165: add new adress_escapes predicate

2012-01-18 Thread Richard Guenther
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Patrick Marlier patrick.marl...@gmail.com wrote: On 01/17/2012 08:20 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: On 01/17/12 03:09, Richard Guenther wrote: On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Aldy Hernandezal...@redhat.com wrote: Not really - you handle both ptr and *ptr in the

Re: PR other/51165: add new adress_escapes predicate

2012-01-18 Thread Aldy Hernandez
So you can do probably the following: Index: trans-mem.c === --- trans-mem.c (revision 183253) +++ trans-mem.c (working copy) @@ -1497,8 +1497,6 @@ requires_barrier (basic_block entry_block, tree x, to

Re: PR other/51165: add new adress_escapes predicate

2012-01-18 Thread Richard Guenther
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Aldy Hernandez al...@redhat.com wrote: So you can do probably the following: Index: trans-mem.c === --- trans-mem.c (revision 183253) +++ trans-mem.c (working copy) @@ -1497,8 +1497,6 @@

Re: PR other/51165: add new adress_escapes predicate

2012-01-17 Thread Richard Guenther
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Aldy Hernandez al...@redhat.com wrote: Not really - you handle both ptr and *ptr in the same predicate and call both address escaped.  What I suggested was sth like I think I confused myself and you by asking the wrong question in the first place.

Re: PR other/51165: add new adress_escapes predicate

2012-01-17 Thread Aldy Hernandez
On 01/17/12 03:09, Richard Guenther wrote: On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Aldy Hernandezal...@redhat.com wrote: Not really - you handle both ptr and *ptr in the same predicate and call both address escaped. What I suggested was sth like I think I confused myself and you by asking the

Re: PR other/51165: add new adress_escapes predicate

2012-01-17 Thread Patrick Marlier
On 01/17/2012 08:20 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: On 01/17/12 03:09, Richard Guenther wrote: On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Aldy Hernandezal...@redhat.com wrote: Not really - you handle both ptr and *ptr in the same predicate and call both address escaped. What I suggested was sth like I

Re: PR other/51165: add new adress_escapes predicate

2012-01-16 Thread Richard Guenther
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Aldy Hernandez al...@redhat.com wrote: As discussed in the PR, the problem here is that we are using ptr_deref_may_alias_global_p() to determine if a dereferenced address escapes, whereas we were previously using the now non existent is_call_clobbered.  The

Re: PR other/51165: add new adress_escapes predicate

2012-01-16 Thread Aldy Hernandez
Not really - you handle both ptr and *ptr in the same predicate and call both address escaped. What I suggested was sth like I think I confused myself and you by asking the wrong question in the first place. Actually, what I want is to handle VAR_DECL correctly, and your original