From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-74387-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 23886 invoked by alias); 15 May 2003 22:20:44 -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 23689 invoked from network); 15 May 2003 22:20:40 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com) (66.187.237.200)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 May 2003 22:20:40 -0000
Received: from frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h4FMHmNm010365;
	Thu, 15 May 2003 15:17:48 -0700
Received: (from rth@localhost)
	by frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h4FMHma8010363;
	Thu, 15 May 2003 15:17:48 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com: rth set sender to rth@redhat.com using -f
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 22:20:00 -0000
From: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo@redhat.com>
Cc: Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com>, "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] copy propagation and the abstraction penalty
Message-ID: <20030515221748.GC10321@redhat.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>,
	Diego Novillo <dnovillo@redhat.com>, Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com>,
	"gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
References: <20030514154455.A12416@synopsys.com> <1053007822.4382.137.camel@frodo.toronto.redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1053007822.4382.137.camel@frodo.toronto.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg01559.txt.bz2

On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 10:10:22AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
>         I'm also wondering if we could change the
>         may-alias between this and UV2150 to a must-alias, which would
>         completely free this program from aliasing problems:

Indeed.  And for this case I definitely think it's the right thing to do.

IMO constant propagation should be able to take

    T.8_2 = &<UVa150>;
    {
      struct complex * const this;

      this_3 = (struct complex * const)T.8_2;
      {
        this->re = 1.0e+0;

and turn it into

	(&<UVa150>)->re = 1.0e+0

which folds to

	<UVa150>.re = 1.0e+0

At which point we have no aliasing problem, and a subsequent round
of constant propagation ought to be able to send 1.0e+0 to its 
destination.


r~