From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-154155-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 14529 invoked by alias); 20 May 2009 18:15:41 -0000
Received: (qmail 14510 invoked by uid 22791); 20 May 2009 18:15:40 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.3 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_15
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from cantor2.suse.de (HELO mx2.suse.de) (195.135.220.15)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 20 May 2009 18:15:29 +0000
Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay-ext.suse.de [195.135.221.8]) 	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) 	(No client certificate requested) 	by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AA1F8655F; 	Wed, 20 May 2009 20:15:25 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 21:34:00 -0000
From: Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>
To: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Adjust the middle-end memory model
In-Reply-To: <4A14288E.4060304@codesourcery.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.0905202010180.25789@zhemvz.fhfr.qr>
References: <alpine.LNX.2.00.0905081221560.25789@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <alpine.LNX.2.00.0905191620000.25789@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <4A12F125.6030309@codesourcery.com> <alpine.LNX.2.00.0905201022290.25789@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <4A14288E.4060304@codesourcery.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
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
X-SW-Source: 2009-05/txt/msg00522.txt.bz2

On Wed, 20 May 2009, Mark Mitchell wrote:

> Richard Guenther wrote:
> 
> >>   void f(float *f, int *n) {
> >>     for (int i = 0; i < *n; ++i) {
> >>       f[i] *= 2;
> >>     }
> >>   }
> 
> > The difference is if you want to sink a load from *n beyond the
> > store to f[i] - in which case you ask if there is an anti-dependence
> > which we cannot exclude in this case (no TBAA is allowed here).
> 
> By "not allowed", you don't mean "would be an invalid optimization", but
> rather "will no longer be done by GCC", right?

Right, not invalid in the above case but nevertheless no longer being
done by GCC.  This is to properly support

int i;
float f;
void foo()
{
  int *p = (int *)malloc(sizeof(int));
  *p = 1;
  i = *p;
  float *q = (float *)p;
  *q = 2.0;
  f = *q;
}

where we need to avoid scheduling the store via *q before the load
from *p.  The above is valid as I read C99 6.5/6, it is an object
with no declared type (obtained via malloc) and has type int
due to the store via *p "for that access and for subsequent accesses
_that do not modify the stored value_." (emphasis mine).  So for
objects without a declared type C can do "placement new" by simply
storing with a different type.  In C++ we of course have the
usual placement new situations.

Richard.