From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4496 invoked by alias); 16 Dec 2002 18:06:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 4474 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2002 18:06:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (12.150.115.133) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Dec 2002 18:06:46 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBGI0wN21659; Mon, 16 Dec 2002 13:00:58 -0500 Received: from krusty.sfbay.redhat.com (krusty.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.45]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBGI4kN21080; Mon, 16 Dec 2002 13:04:46 -0500 Received: (from rth@localhost) by krusty.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gBGI4fP04098; Mon, 16 Dec 2002 18:04:41 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: krusty.sfbay.redhat.com: rth set sender to rth@redhat.com using -f Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:15:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson To: Toon Moene Cc: "Sanjiv Kumar Gupta, Noida" , David Edelsohn , Daniel Berlin , Dale Johannesen , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: possible gcse failure: not able to eliminate redundant loads Message-ID: <20021216180441.C3953@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Richard Henderson , Toon Moene , "Sanjiv Kumar Gupta, Noida" , David Edelsohn , Daniel Berlin , Dale Johannesen , gcc@gcc.gnu.org References: <20021213093054.GA29293@redhat.com> <3DFA4252.3060309@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <3DFA4252.3060309@moene.indiv.nluug.nl>; from toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl on Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 09:25:54PM +0100 X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00902.txt.bz2 On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 09:25:54PM +0100, Toon Moene wrote: > Can we disable this notion of loads-that-might-trap from a frontend ? I don't know. > I cannot imagine a valid Fortran program that contains an access to > memory that "might trap". Yeah, I guess there's really no concept of a null pointer is there... r~