On Oct 9, 2015, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ok. Note that I think emit_block_move shouldn't mess with the addressable > flag.
I have successfully tested a patch that stops it from doing so, reverting https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49429#c11 but according to bugs 49429 and 49454, it looks like removing it would mess with escape analysis introduced in r175063 for bug 44194. The thread that introduces the mark_addressable calls suggests some discomfort with this solution, and even a suggestion that the markings should be deferred past the end of expand, but in the end there was agreement to go with it. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg01746.html I'm leaving it alone, since I can't reasonably test on the platforms where the problems showed up. -- Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/ You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer
