http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57417
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Mon, 27 May 2013, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57417 > > --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > > It seems to me that there is no good reason to ever treat addresses of > > TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS trees as different if there is not TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS > > on offset determining pieces (though that would rely on gimplification > > for COMPONENT_REFs?). > > Yes, I agree that the handling of addresses looks overly conservative. I suppose TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS matter on the offset expression of a get_inner_reference call on op0 of the ADDR_EXPR. For Ada that would involve looking at SUBSTITUTE_PLACEHOLDER_IN_EXPR (DECL_FIELD_OFFSET (field), exp) for example - or do we somehow guarantee that the offset expressions that do not appear in indexes like operand 1 of ARRAY_REFs do not contain side-effects?
