From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id F32EF385843D; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 21:56:35 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org F32EF385843D
From: "marc@nieper-wisskirchen.de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/89479] __restrict on a pointer ignored when
 disambiguating against a call
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 21:56:35 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 8.3.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: alias, missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: marc@nieper-wisskirchen.de
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-89479-4-r9r0wr1yC8@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-89479-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-89479-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 21:56:36 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D89479

--- Comment #11 from Marc Nieper-Wi=C3=9Fkirchen <marc@nieper-wisskirchen.d=
e> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1 of bug 94416)
> I think there's a duplicate somewhere.  We currently cannot encode "restr=
ict"
> into the "accesses" implied by a call.
>=20
> Note there's slight complication when g (b) eventually recurses into 'f'
> passing this 'b' as 'a'.  Recursion makes the interpretation of the
> lexically defined restrict concept a bit weird.
>=20
> So I think this bug can be closed as duplicate of the "restrict and calls"
> bug.
>=20
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 89479 ***

What do you mean by that the restrict concept is lexically defined? If I re=
ad
the standard correctly, restrict makes an assumption about the dynamic exte=
nt
of an executed block. This seems obvious from section 6.7.3.1 (of ISO C18)
which speaks of the block of main in paragraph 2 and the lifetime of object=
s in
paragraph 5.=