From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-65027-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 32066 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2002 11:43:50 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 32048 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2002 11:43:49 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213)
  by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 19 Dec 2002 11:43:49 -0000
Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34)
	id AA08201; Thu, 19 Dec 02 06:45:34 EST
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 07:08:00 -0000
From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
Message-Id: <10212191145.AA08201@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
To: rth@redhat.com
Subject: Re: possible gcse failure: not able to eliminate redundant loads
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg01201.txt.bz2

    So the pointer isn't null, it's uninitialized, and the conditional
    protecting its use is true iff it's initialized.  Same problem.

No, because of the common idiom (especially for lists) of testing a
pointer for being null and then dereferencing it if not.  You can do the
load unconditionally in that case.