On 07/07/2014 02:10 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Richard Henderson <r...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 06/29/2014 11:14 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >>> if (MEM_READONLY_P (x)) >>> + if (GET_CODE (mem_addr) == AND) >>> + return 1; >>> return 0; >> >> Certainly missing braces here. But with that fixed the patch looks >> plausible. >> I'll look at it closer later today. > > Umm... but certainly a very gross hack for a special target in a very > general routine. > > So - please no! > > If addresses with AND are supposed to be barriers then you should > model this explicitely in the IL and not make it work "magically".
Huh? We've supported AND as a conflict-with-most address for like forever. It's not just Alpha that uses them either; at least Altivec as well. > Maybe use ALIAS_SET_MEMORY_BARRIER instead? r~
