From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27433 invoked by alias); 19 Sep 2011 11:58:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 27425 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Sep 2011 11:57:59 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mms3.broadcom.com (HELO MMS3.broadcom.com) (216.31.210.19) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:57:44 +0000 Received: from [10.16.192.224] by MMS3.broadcom.com with ESMTP (Broadcom SMTP Relay (Email Firewall v6.3.2)); Mon, 19 Sep 2011 05:03:27 -0700 X-Server-Uuid: B55A25B1-5D7D-41F8-BC53-C57E7AD3C201 Received: from SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com ([10.16.192.130]) by SJEXCHHUB01.corp.ad.broadcom.com ([10.16.192.224]) with mapi; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 04:57:34 -0700 From: "Bingfeng Mei" To: "Ulrich Weigand" cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:58:00 -0000 Subject: RE: Derive more alias information from named address space Message-ID: <7FB04A5C213E9943A72EE127DB74F0ADD15FCB0432@SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com> References: <7FB04A5C213E9943A72EE127DB74F0ADD15FCB0108@SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com> from "Bingfeng Mei" at Sep 16, 2011 09:11:00 AM <201109191155.p8JBtdw1002580@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <201109191155.p8JBtdw1002580@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-09/txt/msg00190.txt.bz2 Thanks. I will prepare a patch. Bingfeng > -----Original Message----- > From: Ulrich Weigand [mailto:uweigand@de.ibm.com] > Sent: 19 September 2011 12:56 > To: Bingfeng Mei > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: Derive more alias information from named address space >=20 > Bingfeng Mei wrote: >=20 > > Therefore, A & B could only be disjoint, i.e., not aliased to each > other. > > We should be able to write: > > > > if (MEM_ADDR_SPACE (mem) !=3D MEM_ADDR_SPACE (x)) > > { > > if (!targetm.addr_space.subset_p (MEM_ADDR_SPACE (mem), > MEM_ADDR_SPACE (x)) > > && !targetm.addr_space.subset_p (MEM_ADDR_SPACE (x), > MEM_ADDR_SPACE (mem))) > > return 0; > > else > > return 1; > > } > > > > Is this correct? >=20 > Yes, this looks correct to me ... >=20 > Bye, > Ulrich >=20 > -- > Dr. Ulrich Weigand > GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE > Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com