From: Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>
To: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com>
Cc: Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Dissociate store_expr's temp from exp so that it is not marked as addressable
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 08:23:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1204031023171.1852@jbgna.fhfr.qr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201204031001.50984.ebotcazou@adacore.com>
On Tue, 3 Apr 2012, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > Yes, either way I suppose. The following also looks dangerous to me:
> >
> > /* If OFFSET is making OP0 more aligned than BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT,
> > record its alignment as BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT. */
> > if (MEM_P (op0) && bitpos == 0 && offset != 0
> > && is_aligning_offset (offset, tem))
> > set_mem_align (op0, BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT);
> >
> > Maybe we can fall through most of the rest of the function if we
> > canonicalized in the above way? Eric?
>
> Probably not, I'm afraid. I agree that the above call to set_mem_align is
> potentially problematic if we previously allocated the temp. Moreover, I
> think that the other temp allocation around line 9840 is problematic too.
>
> On the other hand, we could avoid skipping set_mem_attributes entirely by
> passing the type instead of the expression.
>
> So I'd set a flag for the first temp allocation, skip the set_mem_align call if
> it is set and pass the type instead of the expression in the final call to
> set_mem_attributes if it is set. And I'd handle the second temp allocation
> independently and pass the type here too.
Yeah, that sounds reasonable.
Richard.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-03 8:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-29 23:22 Martin Jambor
2012-03-30 8:04 ` Richard Guenther
2012-03-31 7:06 ` Martin Jambor
2012-04-02 11:52 ` Richard Guenther
2012-04-03 8:02 ` Eric Botcazou
2012-04-03 8:23 ` Richard Guenther [this message]
2012-04-03 9:03 ` Eric Botcazou
2012-04-04 13:14 ` Martin Jambor
2012-04-06 16:14 ` Eric Botcazou
2012-04-12 15:44 ` Martin Jambor
2012-04-12 17:22 ` Eric Botcazou
2012-04-17 10:10 ` Martin Jambor
2012-04-23 9:02 ` Eric Botcazou
2012-04-06 16:22 ` Eric Botcazou
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=Pine.LNX.4.64.1204031023171.1852@jbgna.fhfr.qr \
--to=rguenther@suse.de \
--cc=ebotcazou@adacore.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=mjambor@suse.cz \
/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).