On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Right. And my question is what happens if we aren't as aggressive here. >> What happens if before this check we return nonzero if X or Y is a VALUE? >> Do we then get into memrefs_conflict_p and does it do the right thing? > > Following patch just after AND detection in base_alias_check fixes the > testcase from PR: > > --cut here-- > Index: alias.c > =================================================================== > --- alias.c (revision 216100) > +++ alias.c (working copy) > @@ -1842,6 +1842,8 @@ base_alias_check (rtx x, rtx x_base, rtx y, rtx y_ > || (int) GET_MODE_UNIT_SIZE (x_mode) < -INTVAL (XEXP (y, 1)))) > return 1; > > + return 1; > + > /* Differing symbols not accessed via AND never alias. */ > if (GET_CODE (x_base) != ADDRESS && GET_CODE (y_base) != ADDRESS) > return 0; > --cut here-- > > I have started a bootstrap on alpha native with this patch (it will > take a day or so) and will report back findings Yes, this "patch" solves the original gfortran problem. It looks to me that the code that handles AND addresses in base_alias_check is not prepared to handle VALUES correctly. Uros.
