On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Tom de Vries <tom_devr...@mentor.com> wrote:
> On 26/10/15 14:29, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Tom de Vries <tom_devr...@mentor.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> After spending some time looking at ealias/pta dumps, I realized that
>>> they're hard to understand because we use varinfo names to identify
>>> varinfos, while those names are not necessarily unique.
>>>
>>> F.i., for a function f:
>>> ...
>>> void
>>> f (int *__restrict__ a, int *__restrict__ b)
>>> {
>>> *a = 1;
>>> *b = 2;
>>> }
>>> ...
>>>
>>> we have at ealias the constraints:
>>> ...
>>> a = &PARM_NOALIAS
>>> PARM_NOALIAS = NONLOCAL
>>> b = &PARM_NOALIAS
>>> PARM_NOALIAS = NONLOCAL
>>> derefaddrtmp = &NONLOCAL
>>> *a = derefaddrtmp
>>> derefaddrtmp = &NONLOCAL
>>> *b = derefaddrtmp
>>> ...
>>> F.i. PARM_NOALIAS occurs several times, and it's not clear if there are
>>> one
>>> or two varinfos with that name.
>>>
>>> Using attached patch, it's clearer what varinfos the constraints relate
>>> to:
>>> ...
>>> a(8) = &PARM_NOALIAS(9)
>>> PARM_NOALIAS(9) = NONLOCAL(5)
>>> b(10) = &PARM_NOALIAS(11)
>>> PARM_NOALIAS(11) = NONLOCAL(5)
>>> derefaddrtmp(12) = &NONLOCAL(5)
>>> *a(8) = derefaddrtmp(12)
>>> derefaddrtmp(13) = &NONLOCAL(5)
>>> *b(10) = derefaddrtmp(13)
>>> ...
>>>
>>> It this a good idea, f.i. guarded by (dump_flags & TDF_DETAILS) not to
>>> disturb scans of current tests?
>>>
>>> Or, do we f.i. want to fix the names themselves to be unique?
>>
>>
>> I think so, on most cases the (n) adds clutter without extra info.
>>
>
> Attached patch implements that approach. We get:
>
> a = &PARM_NOALIAS(9)
> PARM_NOALIAS(9) = NONLOCAL
> b = &PARM_NOALIAS(11)
> PARM_NOALIAS(11) = NONLOCAL
> derefaddrtmp(12) = &NONLOCAL
> *a = derefaddrtmp(12)
> derefaddrtmp(13) = &NONLOCAL
> *b = derefaddrtmp(13)
>
> OK for trunk if bootstrap and reg-test succeeds?
Ok.
Richard.
> Thanks,
> - Tom
>
