------- Comment #75 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-16 17:08 ------- In the chance of endlessly repeating myself here (;)) - what comment #73 boils down to is that we may not prune alias sets of stores based on TBAA results. In fact, we need to realize that C++ object lifetime rules need to be modeled somehow - it's those rules that count after all, not some magic side-effects of placement new.
Of course I realize that without TBAA pruning we have no alias information left on the RTL side for stores (so stores effectively have alias set zero). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29286
