http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45834
Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45834
--- Comment #8 from meibf at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21 15:16:05 UTC ---
Author: meibf
Date: Thu Oct 21 15:16:01 2010
New Revision: 165781
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165781
Log:
2010-10-21 Bingfeng Mei b...@broadcom.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45834
Bingfeng Mei bmei at broadcom dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||richard.guenther
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45834
--- Comment #2 from richard.guenther at gmail dot com richard.guenther at
gmail dot com 2010-10-18 11:38:03 UTC ---
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 1:33 PM, bmei at broadcom dot com
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45834
--- Comment #3 from Bingfeng Mei bmei at broadcom dot com 2010-10-18 12:16:59
UTC ---
I think that standard specifies that char * may refer to an alias of any
object, that's why QImode is different here. But I am not sure whether a
restrict
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45834
--- Comment #4 from richard.guenther at gmail dot com richard.guenther at
gmail dot com 2010-10-18 13:42:33 UTC ---
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 2:17 PM, bmei at broadcom dot com
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45834
--- Comment #5 from Bingfeng Mei bmei at broadcom dot com 2010-10-18 13:53:37
UTC ---
Sure, but we have other means of dealing with that (MEM_ALIAS_SET == 0).
Do you mean this check is redundant here ? I dig out the ancient code (from
1997)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45834
--- Comment #6 from richard.guenther at gmail dot com richard.guenther at
gmail dot com 2010-10-18 13:57:19 UTC ---
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 3:53 PM, bmei at broadcom dot com
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
