jyknight added a comment. Also, I note the doc says it's useful for `for “load address” and “push address” instructions` (note, "load address" means e.g. x86 "lea" instruction) -- which should NOT be dependent upon the value stored in the memory. The x86 backend actually uses a "Ts" constraint for `*lea<mode>` which is defined by `define_address_constraint`, documented <https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Define-Constraints.html> as making a constraint that is basically equivalent to p (just with different limits as to what kinds of addresses are accepted.)
"p" and other define_address_constraints are also used a lot for "prefetch" kinds of instructions, which also should not be memory-value-dependent. So, at least per that description, and usage within GCC, I think LLVM's previous behavior of allowing it to move past a store to the same address actually seems correct? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D145416/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D145416 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
