public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/60092] posix_memalign not recognized to derive alias and alignment info
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 11:34:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-60092-4-7niQBG1n5W@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-60092-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092

--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 32064
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32064&action=edit
part #1, aliasing

I've implemented the aliasing parts (and the builtin obviously).

It's true that doing

  posix_memalign (&ptr, ....);
  ptr = __builtin_assume_aligned (ptr, ...);

will keep ptr address-taken - but isn't it kept address-taken anyway because
it's passed to posix_memalign?

I think you are mixing the possible optimization we can do to posix_memalign
in general with the alignment issue, no?  Thus, we could transform

  posix_memalign (&ptr, ....);

to

  void *tem;
  posix_memalign (&tem, ....);
  ptr = tem;

independently.  Doing it as part of the alignment stuff of course makes sense.
But as you say, eventually we'd just use an extra stack slot for no good
reason.
I've long thought of teaching some more tricks to update_address_taken -
basically ignore some of the address-takens and apply simple transforms on
the stmts causing them if that would make the var non-address-taken
(memcpy comes to my mind as well here).


  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-02-06 11:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-02-06 10:22 [Bug middle-end/60092] New: " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-06 10:22 ` [Bug middle-end/60092] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-06 10:32 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-06 11:34 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2014-02-06 12:51 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-06 13:13 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-06 13:18 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-06 13:42 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-06 14:07 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2014-02-06 14:08 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-06 14:45 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-06 14:53 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-06 15:03 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2014-02-07  9:34 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-07 13:41 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-12 10:01 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-12 10:18 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-12 13:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-14 16:11 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-14 16:14 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-14 16:40 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2014-02-15  9:59 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-18 14:52 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2014-04-22 11:36 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-04-28 14:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-06-03 13:48 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-60092-4-7niQBG1n5W@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).