From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeffrey A Law To: Jamie Lokier Cc: "Patrick J. LoPresti" , gcc@egcs.cygnus.com, rms@gnu.org Subject: Re: [dax@gurulabs.com: PATCH: `__norestrict' type qualifier (fwd)] Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 18:02:00 -0000 Message-ID: <9636.937359591@upchuck.cygnus.com> References: <19990914173757.B12177@pcep-jamie.cern.ch> X-SW-Source: 1999-09n/msg00599.html Message-ID: <19990930180200.v9pP10c6MOMK5x0wpPL9Aq-fe8jIjXtYUuGBVavlMz4@z> In message < 19990914173757.B12177@pcep-jamie.cern.ch >you write: > Patrick J. LoPresti wrote: > > used to resolve any arguments about the behavior of the extension. > > To conform to this, you need to fix up the other type-based alias > analysis that's been in the compiler for a long time: MEM_IN_STRUCT_P. > That would be a good thing, because currently -fno-strict-aliasing does > not turn off this alias assumption. > > Perhaps MEM_IN_STRUCT_P can be completely removed now there is a general > type alias framework? MEM_IN_STRUCT_P is still valuable according to my tests a few months ago. I'm curious, what code do you (or anyone) have that violates the MEM_IN_STRUCT_P assumptions. [As opposed to bugs in MEM_IN_STRUCT_P, of which there have been many, but with the revamp from last year, it ought to be correct now. ] jeff