Re: adding -fnoalias ... would a patch be accepted ?

2010-01-06 Thread torbenh
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 04:45:06PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: > >> I don't see a restrict qualified pointer here.  Note that the > >> restrict attribute would only disambiguate against those. > >> Also I think you need the restrict attribute on the Mixer > >> objects, not its members. > > > > s

Re: adding -fnoalias ... would a patch be accepted ?

2010-01-06 Thread torbenh
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 04:49:29PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Richard Guenther > wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 4:25 PM, torbenh wrote: > >>> > > >>> > Mixer mix __attribute__((restrict)) > >> > >> void fill_buffer( float * __restrict buf, size_t nframes )

Re: adding -fnoalias ... would a patch be accepted ?

2010-01-06 Thread Richard Guenther
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 4:45 PM, torbenh wrote: > On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 04:25:59PM +0100, torbenh wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:27:15PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: >> > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:39 PM, torbenh wrote: >> > > On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 04:27:33PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrot

Re: adding -fnoalias ... would a patch be accepted ?

2010-01-06 Thread Richard Guenther
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 4:25 PM, torbenh wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:27:15PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:39 PM, torbenh wrote: >>> > On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 04:27:33PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:

Re: adding -fnoalias ... would a patch be accepted ?

2010-01-06 Thread torbenh
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 04:25:59PM +0100, torbenh wrote: > On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:27:15PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:39 PM, torbenh wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 04:27:33PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: > > >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 4:03 PM, torbenh wr

Re: adding -fnoalias ... would a patch be accepted ?

2010-01-06 Thread Richard Guenther
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 4:25 PM, torbenh wrote: > On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:27:15PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:39 PM, torbenh wrote: >> > On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 04:27:33PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 4:03 PM, torbenh wrote: >> >> >

Re: adding -fnoalias ... would a patch be accepted ?

2010-01-06 Thread torbenh
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:27:15PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:39 PM, torbenh wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 04:27:33PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 4:03 PM, torbenh wrote: > >> > On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 02:46:30PM +0100, Richard Gue

Re: adding -fnoalias ... would a patch be accepted ?

2010-01-06 Thread Richard Guenther
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:39 PM, torbenh wrote: > On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 04:27:33PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 4:03 PM, torbenh wrote: >> > On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 02:46:30PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:40 PM, torbenh wrote: >> >> >

Re: adding -fnoalias ... would a patch be accepted ?

2010-01-05 Thread Tim Prince
torbenh wrote: can you please explain, why you reject the idea of -fnoalias ? msvc has declspec(noalias) icc has -fnoalias msvc needs it because it doesn't implement restrict and supports violation of typed aliasing rules as a default. ICL needs it for msvc compatibility, but has better alt

Re: adding -fnoalias ... would a patch be accepted ?

2010-01-05 Thread torbenh
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 04:27:33PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 4:03 PM, torbenh wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 02:46:30PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:40 PM, torbenh wrote: > >> > >> The -fno-alias-X things do not make much sense for

Re: adding -fnoalias ... would a patch be accepted ?

2010-01-05 Thread Richard Guenther
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 4:03 PM, torbenh wrote: > On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 02:46:30PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:40 PM, torbenh wrote: >> >> The -fno-alias-X things do not make much sense for user code (they >> have been historically used from Frontends).  If restric

Re: adding -fnoalias ... would a patch be accepted ?

2010-01-05 Thread torbenh
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 02:46:30PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:40 PM, torbenh wrote: > > The -fno-alias-X things do not make much sense for user code (they > have been historically used from Frontends). If restrict doesn't work > for you (do you have a testcase that

Re: adding -fnoalias ... would a patch be accepted ?

2010-01-05 Thread torbenh
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 02:46:30PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:40 PM, torbenh wrote: > > __restrict__ is of no help here. which leads me to the question whats > > the point of a restricted this pointer ? members of structs arent > > unaliased by a __restrict__ pointer

Re: adding -fnoalias ... would a patch be accepted ?

2010-01-05 Thread Richard Guenther
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:40 PM, torbenh wrote: > > hi... > > i am new to this list. > > i am trying to something like: > > struct Ramp > { >    float phase; >    inline float process() { return phase++; } > } ramp; > > void fill_buffer( float *buf, size_t nframes ) > { >        for( size_t i=0; i

adding -fnoalias ... would a patch be accepted ?

2010-01-05 Thread torbenh
hi... i am new to this list. i am trying to something like: struct Ramp { float phase; inline float process() { return phase++; } } ramp; void fill_buffer( float *buf, size_t nframes ) { for( size_t i=0; i