Hello, > >>>you might try turning the references to TARGET_MEM_REFs, and copy the > >>>alias information using copy_ref_info to it. I am not sure how that > >>>would interact with the transformations you want to do, but we do lot > >>>of magic to keep the virtual operands for TARGET_MEM_REFs the same > >>>as before the transformation (unless that got broken in last few months, > >>>which unfortunately is pretty likely). > >>It would be better to annotate things with better alias information > >>than transform into target specific trees, which none of the other > >>transformations actually know how to deal with. > > > >well, I had impression that what he does is some target-specific > >transformation, so this idea did not seem all that out of place to me. > > Thanks Daniel and Zdenek for your suggestions! > > In principle, I don't see anything forbidding Zdenek's idea. > Unfortunately, what I avoided to mention is that TARGET_MEM_REF nodes > are also transformed into pointer arithmetics > and the equivalent > INDIRECT_REF memory access... therefore, this is not an option even only > because of that.
hmm... why you do that? Could you please describe more precisely what are you trying to achieve? > The first time this CLI-specific transformation is performed is before > GIMPLE code enters SSA form This looks like a wrong place; I guess later optimizations will in general try to revert the trees to the original form (at the moment, we do not have tree-combine pass, but if we had, it definitely would). IMHO, it would make more sense to do this kind of target specific transformations as late as possible. Anyway, if that is the case, using TMRs is not a good idea. Zdenek
