--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-01 14:35 ---
This boils down to restrict being implemented as a different alias-set instead
of as points-to information. Dup of PR14187.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 14187 ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-30 23:37 ---
Also it should be noted before strict aliasing came about, restrict did nothing
in the compiler.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29239
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-26 20:28 ---
And this is not a bug, restrict can be ignored by a compiler in terms of
optimization which is what is happening with -fno-strict-aliasing.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-09-26 21:01 ---
Subject: Re: -fno-strict-aliasing disables restrict
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
And this is not a bug, restrict can be ignored by a compiler in terms of
optimization which is what
--- Comment #3 from acahalan at gmail dot com 2006-09-27 00:18 ---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is correct, it's a missed-optimization bug.
(if this isn't a bug, then no missed optimization is a bug)
--
acahalan at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-27 00:35 ---
Except it is better just to fix your code for aliasing issues. The reason why
restrict does not work without strict aliasing is because it needs aliasing
sets and the only way to get that is with strict aliasing.
--- Comment #5 from acahalan at gmail dot com 2006-09-27 02:07 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Except it is better just to fix your code for aliasing issues.
Yes, and all other bugs should be fixed as well.
This is often impractical. Is there even one large modern
kernel which is
--- Comment #6 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-27 02:11 ---
Subject: Re: -fno-strict-aliasing disables restrict
On 27 Sep 2006 02:07:50 -, acahalan at gmail dot com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Comment #5 from acahalan at gmail dot com 2006-09-27 02:07 ---
