[Bug middle-end/14192] Restrict pointers don't help

2013-06-26 Thread colanderman at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14192 Chris King colanderman at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||colanderman at

[Bug middle-end/14192] Restrict pointers don't help

2010-04-28 Thread alexey dot salmin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #13 from alexey dot salmin at gmail dot com 2010-04-28 15:53 --- Sorry, but I still don't get it :( Why exactly we can't remove the second load of *b? void f(int *a, const int *restrict b) { *a++ = *b + 1; *a++ = *b + 1; } --

[Bug middle-end/14192] Restrict pointers don't help

2010-04-27 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-27 18:08 --- *** Bug 43907 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/14192] Restrict pointers don't help

2008-10-01 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-01 14:28 --- Only two_restrict_pointers is valid. This is a dup of PR14187. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 14187 *** -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed

[Bug middle-end/14192] Restrict pointers don't help

2007-06-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 00:34 --- The second case is the following loop: This is just caused by how we represent pointer addition. I have a fix for that one, we now get the correct aliasing sets for it. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org

[Bug middle-end/14192] Restrict pointers don't help

2005-09-27 Thread ian at airs dot com
--- Additional Comments From ian at airs dot com 2005-09-28 05:21 --- We are not waiting for anything in this bug, as far as I can tell. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/14192] Restrict pointers don't help

2005-01-23 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 18:48 --- Zack, Joseph, could one of you comment on Jan's interpretation of the semantics of restrict? This restrict keyword keeps coming back to haunt us, bah. -- What|Removed

[Bug middle-end/14192] Restrict pointers don't help

2005-01-23 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 18:51 --- We should probably have a metabug for restrict. We don't take advantage of the restrict keyword very well either in some (unfortunately proprierty) benchmark suites. -- What|Removed

[Bug middle-end/14192] Restrict pointers don't help

2005-01-23 Thread joseph at codesourcery dot com
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-01-23 20:59 --- Subject: Re: Restrict pointers don't help On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: Zack, Joseph, could one of you comment on Jan's interpretation of the semantics of restrict?

[Bug middle-end/14192] Restrict pointers don't help

2004-10-11 Thread giovannibajo at libero dot it
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-10-11 10:56 --- Zack, do you confirm that the semantics of restrict (in C99 and/or GNU C) allow us to schedule the load before the store even if there is only one restrict pointer? Otherwise, this bug report is invalid.