> Thanks for the fixes, the forgotten duplication and streaming were quite > embarrassing, but one reason is that there are few reverse SSO testcases > in the suite. Would it be difficult to add some covering the issues you > fixed?
No, I think I should be able to cover 3 out of the 4 changes, see below. > ...is this strictly necessary? I know it is inconsistent but the > certain flag is fairly special. More importantly... No strong opinion, but that's really inconsistent... > > @@ -3349,6 +3346,7 @@ pull_accesses_from_callee (cgraph_node *caller, > > isra_param_desc *param_desc,> > > copy->type = argacc->type; > > copy->alias_ptr_type = argacc->alias_ptr_type; > > copy->certain = true; > > > > + copy->reverse = argacc->reverse; > > > > vec_safe_push (param_desc->accesses, copy); > > > > } > > > > else if (prop_kinds[j] == ACC_PROP_CERTAIN) > > ...earlier in the function, there is a check doing: > > if (argacc->alias_ptr_type != pacc->alias_ptr_type > > || !types_compatible_p (argacc->type, pacc->type)) > > return "propagated access types would not match existing ones"; > > Will the types_compatible_p catch the case when one type is a > reverse-SSO and the other is not? If not, we probably need to check > that the flags are the same too. That's the change I don't know how to cover and I agree that the check looks in order, but I presume that the flag still needs to be copied onto "copy"? -- Eric Botcazou
