On 29/09/15 10:29, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 22/09/15 09:49, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
Hi,
Consider this test-case:
struct ps
{
int *__restrict__ p;
};
void
f (struct ps &__restrict__ ps1)
{
*(ps1.p) = 1;
}
Atm, the restrict on p has no effect. Now, say we add a field to the
struct:
struct ps
{
int *__restrict__ p;
int a;
};
Then the restrict on p does have the desired effect.
This patch fixes the handling of structs with a single field in alias
analysis.
Bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64.
OK for trunk?
Ok.
Hi,
I wonder if this follow-up patch is necessary.
Now that we handle structs with one field in the final loop of
create_variable_info_for_1, should we set the is_full_var field as well? It
used to be set for such structs before I committed the "Handle single restrict
pointer in struct in create_variable_info_for_1" patch.
Yeah, I suppose so. But I'd set vi->is_full_var to true when
allocating 'vi':
vi = new_var_info (decl, name);
vi->fullsize = tree_to_uhwi (declsize);
+ if (fieldstack.length () == 1)
+ vi->is_full_var = true;
Ok with that change.
Committed as attached.
Thanks,
- Tom
Add missing is_full_var setting in create_variable_info_for_1
2015-10-23 Tom de Vries <t...@codesourcery.com>
* tree-ssa-structalias.c (create_variable_info_for_1): Add missing
setting of is_full_var in case of a single field.
---
gcc/tree-ssa-structalias.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-structalias.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-structalias.c
index 8d86dcb..db0ab1e 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-structalias.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-structalias.c
@@ -5693,6 +5693,8 @@ create_variable_info_for_1 (tree decl, const char *name)
vi = new_var_info (decl, name);
vi->fullsize = tree_to_uhwi (declsize);
+ if (fieldstack.length () == 1)
+ vi->is_full_var = true;
for (i = 0, newvi = vi;
fieldstack.iterate (i, &fo);
++i, newvi = vi_next (newvi))
--
1.9.1
