From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17182 invoked by alias); 14 Aug 2014 14:34:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 17128 invoked by uid 89); 14 Aug 2014 14:34:06 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-we0-f175.google.com Received: from mail-we0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-we0-f175.google.com) (74.125.82.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 14:34:04 +0000 Received: by mail-we0-f175.google.com with SMTP id t60so1190702wes.20 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 07:34:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.181.13.112 with SMTP id ex16mr41089627wid.58.1408026840345; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 07:34:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.20.69 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 07:34:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <53E5AE2D.4010509@mentor.com> References: <53E4B4DC.3030901@mentor.com> <53E4EA03.90806@mentor.com> <53E5AE2D.4010509@mentor.com> Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 14:34:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Fix if-conversion pass for dead type-unsafe code From: Richard Biener To: Tom de Vries Cc: Richard Biener , Steven Bosscher , "gcc- >> GCC Patches" , Andrew Pinski Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-08/txt/msg01477.txt.bz2 On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Tom de Vries wrote: > On 08-08-14 17:17, Tom de Vries wrote: >>> >>> Maybe instead of a new mem_alias_equal_p simply compare MEM_ATTRs >>> with mem_attrs_eq_p? >> >> >> I propose to fix it this way (as attached) on 4.8/4.9/trunk, and maybe do >> a more >> efficient handling on trunk as a follow-up patch. >> >> I'll put this through bootstrap/test again. > > > Bootstrapped and reg-tested on trunk x86_64. > > Re-attached patch OK for trunk, 4.8, 4.9 ? Ok. (did you check the effect on code-generation? that is, how many opportunities compiling GCC do we "lose"?) Thanks, Richard. > Thanks, > - Tom