From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5100 invoked by alias); 27 Jan 2009 12:06:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 4994 invoked by uid 48); 27 Jan 2009 12:06:01 -0000 Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20090127120601.4993.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: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org" 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/msg02934.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 12:06 ------- In the operand scanner we try to be clever ... else if (TREE_CODE (ptr) == INTEGER_CST) { /* If a constant is used as a pointer, we can't generate a real operand for it but we mark the statement volatile to prevent optimizations from messing things up. */ gimple_set_has_volatile_ops (stmt, true); return; but that of course misses the fact that we miss all necessary conflicts. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38985