From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-349035-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 3371 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2011 22:00:51 -0000
Received: (qmail 3362 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Mar 2011 22:00:50 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Mar 2011 22:00:46 +0000
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/47980] Inefficient code for local const char arrays
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Status Component Resolution
Message-ID: <bug-47980-4-pFHsxVRTUf@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-47980-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-47980-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 22:00:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-03/txt/msg00348.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47980

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
          Component|c                           |middle-end
         Resolution|                            |INVALID

--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-03-03 22:00:36 UTC ---
Actually the copying is correct.
Take:
void f(const char *p);

void g(int t) {
  const char foo[] = "aoeuaoeuaeouaeouaoeuaoeaoxbxod";
  f(foo, t);
  if (!t)
    g(1);
}

const char *a;

void f(const char *p, int t)
{
  if (!t)
    a = p;
  else if (a == p)
    abort ();
}

void main(void)
{
  g(0);
}

This program should not abort with your "optimization", it will.