On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Consider this test-case:
> ...
> struct ps
> {
> int *__restrict__ p;
> };
>
> f (struct ps &__restrict__ ps1)
> {
> *(ps1.p) = 1;
> }
> ...
>
> Atm (meaning after the fix for PR67666) for this test-case, we register two
> clique/base annotations, one for the load of pointer ps1.p and one for the
> store to that pointer:
> ...
> void f(ps&) (struct psD.2252 & restrict ps1D.2255)
> {
> intD.9 * _3;
>
> # VUSE <.MEM_1(D)>
> # PT = { D.2262 } (nonlocal)
> _3 = MEM[(struct psD.2252 &)ps1_2(D) clique 1 base 1].pD.2254;
>
> # .MEM_4 = VDEF <.MEM_1(D)>
> MEM[(intD.9 *)_3 clique 1 base 2] = 1;
> ...
>
>
> If we rewrite the test-case by replacing the struct with its only field, we
> get:
> ...
> f (int *__restrict__ &__restrict__ p)
> {
> *p = 1;
> }
> ...
>
> However, in this case, we register only one clique/base annotation, for the
> load of pointer p, but not for the store to pointer p:
> ...
> void f(int* __restrict__&) (intD.9 * restrict & restrict pD.2255)
> {
> intD.9 * _3;
>
> # VUSE <.MEM_1(D)>
> # PT = nonlocal escaped
> _3 = MEM[(intD.9 * restrict &)p_2(D) clique 1 base 1];
>
> # .MEM_4 = VDEF <.MEM_1(D)>
> *_3 = 1;
> ...
>
>
> This patch makes sure we register both clique/base annotations for the the
> second example.
>
> Bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64.
>
> OK for trunk?
Ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
> Thanks,
> - Tom
>
--
Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB
21284 (AG Nuernberg)
