https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63446
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||f.heckenb...@fh-soft.de
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63446
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2014-10-03 00:00:00 |2021-4-16
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63446
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #7)
> IIRC we don't, and the file contains a comment saying that it would be
> expensive. Actually, properly limiting the maximal depth of the walk (as is
> done in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63446
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #6)
> What about [...]
That's roughly what I describe in comment #2, amended by comment #3.
> It could be a matter of following the chain of VUSE->VDEF,
> which I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63446
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #5)
> A clobber implies that the content is lost, so it is useless to store
> something there right before the clobber (I assume that's why the store is
> removed,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63446
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #4)
> At some moment (in dcce1), gcc decides that x = 4 is not needed. For the
> same reason, it could realize that MEM[(struct foo *)&D.2281] = &x must
> produce a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63446
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #2)
> make_foo:
>
> MEM[(struct foo *)&D.2281] = &x;
> x ={v} {CLOBBER};
> return D.2281;
>
> That doesn't seem so easy to warn about. We could walk from re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63446
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #2)
> make_foo:
>
> MEM[(struct foo *)&D.2281] = &x;
> x ={v} {CLOBBER};
> return D.2281;
>
> That doesn't seem so easy to warn about. We could walk from return to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63446
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
make_foo:
MEM[(struct foo *)&D.2281] = &x;
x ={v} {CLOBBER};
return D.2281;
That doesn't seem so easy to warn about. We could walk from return to find some
of the latest non-clobbered dominating writes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63446
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
10 matches
Mail list logo
