Richard Guenther wrote:
> Yes, that's the primary motivation of this patch. Can I take this
> as an approval for the C++ frontend changes?
OK.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
m...@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713
On Wed, 20 May 2009, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > int i;
> > float f;
> > void foo()
> > {
> > int *p = (int *)malloc(sizeof(int));
> > *p = 1;
> > i = *p;
> > float *q = (float *)p;
> > *q = 2.0;
> > f = *q;
> > }
>
> Yes, I think that's a valid program too.
Richard Guenther wrote:
> int i;
> float f;
> void foo()
> {
> int *p = (int *)malloc(sizeof(int));
> *p = 1;
> i = *p;
> float *q = (float *)p;
> *q = 2.0;
> f = *q;
> }
Yes, I think that's a valid program too. I'm OK with giving up this
optimization; clearly we need to be correct f
On Wed, 20 May 2009, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> >> void f(float *f, int *n) {
> >> for (int i = 0; i < *n; ++i) {
> >> f[i] *= 2;
> >> }
> >> }
>
> > The difference is if you want to sink a load from *n beyond the
> > store to f[i] - in which case you as
Richard Guenther wrote:
>> void f(float *f, int *n) {
>> for (int i = 0; i < *n; ++i) {
>> f[i] *= 2;
>> }
>> }
> The difference is if you want to sink a load from *n beyond the
> store to f[i] - in which case you ask if there is an anti-dependence
> which we cannot exclude in t
On Tue, 19 May 2009, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> >> - The tree alias oracle got similar functionality, refs_anti_dependent
> >>and refs_output_dependent and the tree level data dependence
> >>analysis code makes use of these.
>
> Do we still use TBAA for the origi
Richard Guenther wrote:
>> - The tree alias oracle got similar functionality, refs_anti_dependent
>>and refs_output_dependent and the tree level data dependence
>>analysis code makes use of these.
Do we still use TBAA for the original motivating reason for adding it,
e.g.,:
void f(flo
On Fri, 8 May 2009, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> This adjusts the middle-end memory model to properly honor type-based
> aliasing rules set by the C and C++ standards.
>
> The bulk of the patch gets rid of our previous attempts to fix
> the issues around placement new and friends, CHANGE_DYNAMIC_
