From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com>
To: "Michael P. Hayes" <michaelh@ongaonga.chch.cri.nz>
Cc: egcs@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: Memory aliasing 
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 09:34:00 -0000
Message-id: <25136.877887371@hurl.cygnus.com>
References: <199710150031.NAA18141@ongaonga.chch.cri.nz>
X-SW-Source: 1997-10/msg01095.html

  In message < 199710150031.NAA18141@ongaonga.chch.cri.nz >you write:
  > 
  > I've noticed that memrefs_conflict_p considers the following operands
  > to reference conflicting memory:
  > 
  > (mem:QI (plus:QI (reg:QI 8 ar0) (const_int 1)))
  > 
  > (mem:QI (reg:QI 8 ar0))
Does the particular call where they're considered conflicting come
from a call chain which includes true_dependence?  It appears that
true_dependence is passing in the wrong first argument when it
calls memrefs_conflict_p.

jeff