From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16866 invoked by alias); 27 Jan 2009 11:27:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 16464 invoked by alias); 27 Jan 2009 11:27:26 -0000 Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 11:27:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20090127112726.16461.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/38985] [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] missing constraints for pointers accessed directly via their address In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "pinskia at gmail dot com" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-01/txt/msg02928.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #1 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2009-01-27 11:27 ------- Subject: Re: New: [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] missing constraints for pointers accessed directly via their address Sent from my iPhone On Jan 27, 2009, at 3:15 AM, "bonzini at gnu dot org" wrote: > This testcase fails: > > /* { dg-do compile } */ > /* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-optimized" } */ > > int f(int *p) > { > int a = *p; > int *q = (int *)0xDEADBEE0; > *q = 5; > return *p == a; > } > > /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times " = \\\*p" 2 "optimized" } } */ > /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "return 1" "optimized" } } */ > /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "optimized" } } */ > > > Unlike PR38984 it does not require -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks. Volatile addresses also don't have vops on them. As I mentioned in the other bug. So this is also a bug for volatiles. > > > > -- > Summary: [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] missing constraints for > pointers accessed directly via their address > Product: gcc > Version: 4.4.0 > Status: UNCONFIRMED > Keywords: wrong-code > Severity: normal > Priority: P3 > Component: tree-optimization > AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org > ReportedBy: bonzini at gnu dot org > OtherBugsDependingO 38984 > nThis: > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38985 > -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38985