From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31878 invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2003 19:12:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 31869 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2003 19:12:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO book.moene.indiv.nluug.nl) (195.109.255.217) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Nov 2003 19:12:50 -0000 Received: from local ([127.0.0.1] helo=moene.indiv.nluug.nl) by book.moene.indiv.nluug.nl with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1AQX15-0005J4-00; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:13:59 +0100 Message-ID: <3FCA4162.2040208@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:31:00 -0000 From: Toon Moene Organization: Moene Computational Physics, Maartensdijk, The Netherlands User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux ppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020622 Debian/1.0.0-0.woody.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Toon Moene CC: Daniel Berlin , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , Diego Novillo Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] Fix bootstrap failure References: <1070203864.24047.32.camel@frodo.toronto.redhat.com> <6C265DAC-2346-11D8-BE3D-000A95DA505C@dberlin.org> <3FCA37F3.7010703@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> <012406BB-2365-11D8-BE3D-000A95DA505C@dberlin.org> <3FCA3D3A.7020305@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg02378.txt.bz2 Toon Moene wrote: > Daniel Berlin wrote: > >> On Nov 30, 2003, at 1:33 PM, Toon Moene wrote: >>> Talking about "fixed" - as far as I can see your PTA only takes >>> effect if HAVE_BANSHEE is defined during compilation. >> Because it gets thrown into gcc's config.h. > Yep, got it - was looking in the wrong spot. Sorry. BTW, the real reason I'm interested in alias analysis is to implement Fortran's "if you don't tell us you're not aliasing" rules. I'm looking at tree-alias-common.c (intra_function_call): /* We assume that an actual parameter can point to any global. */ where Fortran would change the "can" to "cannot" :-) Is that the point to change ? Thanks in advance, -- Toon Moene - mailto:toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl - phoneto: +31 346 214290 Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands Maintainer, GNU Fortran 77: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77_news.html GNU Fortran 95: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/ (under construction)