>
Well, sure. We don't create subvariables here.
Right now.
I'm just saying you might want to make sure your code won't break when we do.
Otherwise, i'll be forced to injure you severely :)
Daniel Berlin wrote on 09/22/06 08:44:
> Sure. If you want to make the verifier trigger less on undefined code
> because you are optimizing it better, feel free!
>
OK, thanks. I don't know 'optimizing better', for now it's just
'different'.
> Just be careful you don't get tricked by the pointer
The problem starts when the operand scanner in mem-ssa determines that since
neither
u[1] nor u[2] have corresponding SFTs, they get to use 'u' directly. This is
different
from mainline. In mainline we use SFT.0 for all of them:
foo ()
{
short unsigned int u[1];
# SFT.0_2 = V_MUST_DE
With some local changes I've done in the mem-ssa branch I'm getting a
verification
error in execute/20050206-1.c:
foo ()
{
short unsigned int u[1];
# SFT.0_9 = VDEF <.MEM_8(D)>
u[0] = 1;
# SFT.0_10 = VDEF
u[0] = 0;
# u_11 = VDEF <.MEM_8(D)>
u[1] = 1;
# u_12 = VDEF
u[2] =
