Re: Aliasing sets on Arrays Types

2006-03-21 Thread Andrew Haley
Richard Guenther writes: > On 3/21/06, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Take the following C code: > > typedef long atype[]; > > typedef long atype1[]; > > > > int NumSift (atype *a, atype1 *a1) > > { > >(*a)[0] = 0; > >(*a1)[0] = 1; > >return (*a)[0]; > > } > >

Re: Aliasing sets on Arrays Types

2006-03-21 Thread Richard Guenther
On 3/21/06, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Take the following C code: > typedef long atype[]; > typedef long atype1[]; > > int NumSift (atype *a, atype1 *a1) > { >(*a)[0] = 0; >(*a1)[0] = 1; >return (*a)[0]; > } > Shouldn't the aliasing set for the type atype be the same as

Aliasing sets on Arrays Types

2006-03-20 Thread Andrew Pinski
Take the following C code: typedef long atype[]; typedef long atype1[]; int NumSift (atype *a, atype1 *a1) { (*a)[0] = 0; (*a1)[0] = 1; return (*a)[0]; } Shouldn't the aliasing set for the type atype be the same as atype1? In NumSift, shouldn't the store to (*a1)[0] interfere with (*a)[0] s