On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> but that probably shouldn't apply to array types. The idea is that
>> objects of the same type cannot overlap. Maybe Joseph can clarify whether
>> and array object of known size really constitu
On Wed, 30 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
> but that probably shouldn't apply to array types. The idea is that
> objects of the same type cannot overlap. Maybe Joseph can clarify whether
> and array object of known size really constitutes an object in that sense.
This is one of the ambiguous c
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Alexander Cherepanov
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Pascal Cuoq communicated to me the following example:
>
> int ar1(int (*p)[3], int (*q)[3])
> {
> (*p)[0] = 1;
> (*q)[1] = 2;
> return (*p)[0];
> }
>
> gcc of versions 4.9.2 and 7.0.0 20161129 optimize it with -O2 on the
Hi!
Pascal Cuoq communicated to me the following example:
int ar1(int (*p)[3], int (*q)[3])
{
(*p)[0] = 1;
(*q)[1] = 2;
return (*p)[0];
}
gcc of versions 4.9.2 and 7.0.0 20161129 optimize it with -O2 on the
premise that elements with different indices don't alias:
:
