On April 26, 2017 8:03:44 PM GMT+02:00, Steve Ellcey <sell...@cavium.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 11:33 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >
>> > Index: gcc/emit-rtl.c
>> > ===================================================================
>> > --- gcc/emit-rtl.c (revision 247273)
>> > +++ gcc/emit-rtl.c (working copy)
>> > @@ -1954,7 +1954,10 @@ set_mem_attributes_minus_bitpos (rtx ref
>> > while (TREE_CODE (t2) == ARRAY_REF);
>> >
>> > if (DECL_P (t2)
>> > - || TREE_CODE (t2) == COMPONENT_REF)
>> > + || (TREE_CODE (t2) == COMPONENT_REF
>> > + /* For trailing arrays t2 doesn't have a size
>that
>> > + covers all valid accesses. */
>> > + && ! array_at_struct_end_p (t, false)))
>> > {
>> > attrs.expr = t2;
>> > attrs.offset_known_p = false;
>> >
>> > is probably better.
>> >
>> > Richard.
>
>I tested this patch and it fixed my problem. It does seem better than
>my patch because now the [0] and [] versions of my test generate
>exactly the same code. With my patch they still generated different
>code though both versions worked OK.
>
>I did a full bootstrap and gcc testsuite run on aarch64 with no
>regressions. Will you check this in or do you want me to do a
>submission and checkin?
I'll throw it on x86 testing and will commit it. What branches are affected?
Can you open a bugreport?
I'll try to add a runtime testcase as well if you don't beat me to that. On
x86 it likely requires -fschedule-insns to trigger.
Richard.
>Steve Ellcey
>sell...@cavium.com
