On 6/17/07, Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So if I have > > struct foo {int x; float y; } bar; > > int *pi; > > float *pf; > > > > and mark X as "nonaddressable", I know that an assigment to *pi can't > > affect bar.x. > > But if you add > > struct foo *foop = &bar. > > foop->x = 5. > > It can, even though we *claim* X is nonaddressable.Which can what exactly?
It can be addressed, as i've shown above. foop is a pointer to &bar.x in the above case. You guys seem to be trying to get some sort of optimization through hacking around with the alias set system, and then guessing at how all the clients will actually use the information. The reality is that a pointer to it's parent can legally access it, so their alias sets should conflict. You seem to only want it to not conflict "in certain cases", and hacking around with alias sets is the wrong way to do this. The right way to do this is to take the special cases into account when you actually see them. I'm completely unsurprised this is broken at the tree level given how it is implemented --Dan
