http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48702
--- Comment #21 from davidxl <xinliangli at gmail dot com> 2011-05-19 05:02:29 UTC --- Before a better fix is found, is the proposed patch ok? If yes, I will do more testing and submit to gcc-patches@ David (In reply to comment #19) > On Tue, 17 May 2011, rakdver at kam dot mff.cuni.cz wrote: > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48702 > > > > --- Comment #15 from rakdver at kam dot mff.cuni.cz <rakdver at kam dot > > mff.cuni.cz> 2011-05-17 19:26:18 UTC --- > > Hi, > > > > > The following patch fixes the problem. Is it ok? > > > > as a heuristic, this probably makes sense. Still, it does > > not fix the problem, just masks it and makes it harder to reproduce, > > Looks similar to my original workaround, no? > > We can actually use something like the aliasing non-pointer base > Zdenek mentioned upthread. TARGET_MEM_REF has two index operands > (where usually TMR_INDEX2 is NULL of TMR_BASE is non-constant). > So we could build a TARGET_MEM_REF based off TMR_BASE 0B and > move the non-pointer base to TMR_INDEX2. The oracle then should > not be able to disambiguate anything (and also no points-to > info would be available, which probably doesn't make this the > very very best idea either). > > Richard.
