* [Bug tree-optimization/2462] "restrict" implementation bug
[not found] <bug-2462-1008@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2007-05-22 1:09 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-06-25 8:58 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-05-22 1:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-22 02:09 -------
pointer plus branch helps out with the heap allocated memory, may_alias gets
less confused with them. It does not fully fix this bug but it does help out.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2462
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/2462] "restrict" implementation bug
[not found] <bug-2462-1008@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2007-05-22 1:09 ` [Bug tree-optimization/2462] "restrict" implementation bug pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-06-25 8:58 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2009-06-25 10:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2009-06-25 8:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-06-25 08:58 -------
Oops...
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |missed-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2462
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/2462] "restrict" implementation bug
[not found] <bug-2462-1008@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2007-05-22 1:09 ` [Bug tree-optimization/2462] "restrict" implementation bug pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-06-25 8:58 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2009-06-25 10:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-06-25 15:31 ` dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu
` (3 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-06-25 10:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-25 10:28 -------
With the new restrict implementation baz() works and all the rest would work
as well if the calls to link_error () would not cause the malloced memory
to be clobbered. The artifact here is that malloced memory is considered
global (we are not allowed to remove stores to it).
But this is all unrelated to restrict support which should be properly
fixed now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2462
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/2462] "restrict" implementation bug
[not found] <bug-2462-1008@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2009-06-25 10:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-06-25 15:31 ` dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu
2010-07-13 10:48 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu @ 2009-06-25 15:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu 2009-06-25 15:31 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> With the new restrict implementation baz() works and all the rest would work
> as well if the calls to link_error () would not cause the malloced memory
> to be clobbered. The artifact here is that malloced memory is considered
> global (we are not allowed to remove stores to it).
The intention for link_error was to just make it easier to write a test, not to
prohibit optimization.
Please feel free to adjust the code accordingly.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2462
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/2462] "restrict" implementation bug
[not found] <bug-2462-1008@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2009-06-25 15:31 ` dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu
@ 2010-07-13 10:48 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-13 11:12 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-13 11:28 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-07-13 10:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-13 10:48 -------
Restrict has been implemented anew for GCC 4.6. Does that fix this bug?
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2462
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/2462] "restrict" implementation bug
[not found] <bug-2462-1008@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2010-07-13 10:48 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-07-13 11:12 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-13 11:28 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-07-13 11:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-13 11:12 -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> Restrict has been implemented anew for GCC 4.6. Does that fix this bug?
In 4.5, see comment #7 for the status of this bug.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2462
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/2462] "restrict" implementation bug
[not found] <bug-2462-1008@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2010-07-13 11:12 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-07-13 11:28 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-07-13 11:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-13 11:28 -------
We have a separate bug for malloced memory. So this bug is FIXED.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2462
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread