From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21165 invoked by alias); 21 Sep 2006 14:53:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 21123 invoked by alias); 21 Sep 2006 14:53:43 -0000 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:53:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20060921145343.21122.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/25737] ACATS c974001 c974013 hang with struct aliasing In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "dberlin at dberlin dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2006-09/txt/msg02060.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #34 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-21 14:53 ------- Subject: Re: ACATS c974001 c974013 hang with struct aliasing On 21 Sep 2006 14:49:14 -0000, krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > > > ------- Comment #33 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-21 14:49 ------- > Ok. I wasn't aware of this. On s390 these testcases failed even without the > struct-aliasing patch. So obviously it was just a coincidence that the same > testcases failed on s390 (plus one more). > Sorry if I made the confusion complete. It's okay, since this bug will never be fixed until someone can explain why they believe making things non-addressable will result in more aliasing, and not less. I suspect the reality is there is some fundamental misunderstanding of how aliasing or addressability works on the part of the Ada folks (no offense to them, it's just the arguments they keep offering are, well, strange to anyone who understands aliasing). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25737