From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15425 invoked by alias); 28 Jan 2009 12:08:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 15376 invoked by alias); 28 Jan 2009 12:08:07 -0000 Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:08:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20090128120807.15375.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: "rguenther at suse dot de" 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/msg03079.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-28 12:08 ------- Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] missing constraints for pointers accessed directly via their address On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote: > ------- Comment #13 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-28 11:50 ------- > Aren't loads protected by the gimple_set_has_volatile_ops anyway? No, only during early optimizations (because we don't have virtual operands there). Richard. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38985