On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 01:05:08PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote: > On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Olivier Hainque <hain...@adacore.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 3, 2012, at 16:34 , Olivier Hainque wrote: > >> Thanks a lot for following up on this one. Coincidentally, I was just > >> about to submit the alternate approach we had discussed about, after > >> David's comment at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-11/msg01842.html. > > > >> This is of course a much heavier hammer so it would be nice if we can > >> indeed have a subtler way out :-) > > > > To clarify: the heavier approach is the one I was about to submit > > (minor variation of Joseph's proposal in the thread just referenced), > > and the subtler way out is the one you are proposing here. > > We can give Alan's patch a try. I'm not sure if it is sufficient > given the experience of IBM's XL compiler. I also would rather not > use the heavier hammer, but I don't want to leave a latent bug.
I'll see whether my approach fixes pr30282 for gcc-4.4 which has known deficiencies in alias analysis. Olivier, would you be kind enough to backport and test against other versions of gcc that needed your bigger hammer? -- Alan Modra Australia Development Lab, IBM
