On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com> wrote: > It is used to indicate the fact the var decl needs to have a memory > home (addressable) -- is there another way to do this? this is to > avoid the following situation: > > 1) after SRA before update SSA, the IR looks like: > > MEM[.... &SR_123] = ... > > other_var = SR_123; <---- (x) > > > In this case, SR_123 is not of aggregate type, and it is not > addressable, update_ssa won't assign a VUSE for (x), leading to
The point is, SRA should never have created the above MEM[.... &SR_123] = ... Martin, why would it even create new _memory_ backed decls? Richard. > 2) final IR after SRA: > > MEM[..., &SR_123] = .. > other_var = SR_123_yyy(D); > > > David > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 4:13 AM, Richard Guenther > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com> >> wrote: >>> Compiling the test case in the patch with -O2 -m32 without the fix, >>> the program will abort. The problem is a var decl whose address is >>> taken is not marked as addressable leading to bad SSA update (missing >>> VUSE). (the triaging used the the .after and .after_cleanup dump diff >>> and found the problem). >>> >>> the test is on going. Ok after testing? >> >> That doesn't make sense. SRA shouldn't generate anything that has >> its address taken. So, where do we take its address? >> >> Richard. >> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> David >>> >> >
