https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97656
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Mon, 2 Nov 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97656 > > Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org > > --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > > Maybe use > > > > ". WT" > > > > for this? And the discussed 'a'...'z' for the "upper case" '1'...'9', both > > to denote the range is exact? Note we discussed that we can this way > > specify a must-def but here it's a may-def but with known offset. Guess > > must vs. may would rather be another first letter like 'D'? (and only > > 'direct' supported there obviously) And the upper case size specification > > means > > at zero offset? > > Well, at least in the above case it is not just 0 offset, but any access from > the offset 0 (inclusive) to size of the type pointed by the argument > (exclusive). > E.g. if it is a structure, SRA must be surely be able to split it off and use > MEM_REFs even with non-zero offsets. Yes, we can only model the effect in the caller not constraints to the actual IL in the callee.
