>
> Please also see if there are testcases that do anything meaningful
> and FAIL after instead of
>
> /* Do access-path based disambiguation. */
> if (ref1 && ref2
> && (handled_component_p (ref1) || handled_component_p (ref2)))
>
> doing
>
> /* Do access-path based disambiguation. */
> if (ref1 && ref2
> && (handled_component_p (ref1) && handled_component_p (ref2)))
>
On tramp3d we get quite few matches which are attached. If ref1 is
MEM_REF and ref2 has non-trivial access path then it seems we need:
1) ref1 and ref2 to conflict (ref1 is a record or alias set 0)
2) basetype2 to contain ref1 (so it conflicts too)
3) if ref1 is a record than the access path may go into a type
contained as field of ref1 but via path not containing ref1 itself.
I tried to construct testcase:
truct foo {int val;} *fooptr;
struct bar {struct foo foo; int val2;} *barptr;
int test()
{
struct foo foo={0};
barptr->val2 = 1;
*fooptr=foo;
return barptr->val2;
}
but we do not optimize it. I.e. optimized dump has:
test ()
{
struct bar * barptr.0_1;
struct foo * fooptr.1_2;
int _6;
<bb 2> [local count: 1073741824]:
barptr.0_1 = barptr;
barptr.0_1->val2 = 1;
fooptr.1_2 = fooptr;
MEM[(struct foo *)fooptr.1_2] = 0;
_6 = barptr.0_1->val2;
return _6;
}
I see no reason why we should not constant propagate the return value.
Honza
rep5-sametest2-fits6.gz
Description: application/gzip
