On 03/08/2022 00:36, Jeff Law wrote:
On 8/2/2022 10:06 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 01/08/2022 11:38, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 30/07/2022 20:57, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 7/29/2022 7:52 AM, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote:
A SET operation that wri
On 8/2/2022 10:06 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 01/08/2022 11:38, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 30/07/2022 20:57, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 7/29/2022 7:52 AM, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote:
A SET operation that writes memory may have the same value as an
On 01/08/2022 11:38, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 30/07/2022 20:57, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 7/29/2022 7:52 AM, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote:
A SET operation that writes memory may have the same value as an
earlier store but if the alias sets of the new
On 30/07/2022 20:57, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 7/29/2022 7:52 AM, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote:
A SET operation that writes memory may have the same value as an
earlier store but if the alias sets of the new and earlier store do
not conflict then the set is not truly red
On 7/29/2022 7:52 AM, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches wrote:
A SET operation that writes memory may have the same value as an
earlier store but if the alias sets of the new and earlier store do
not conflict then the set is not truly redundant. This can happen,
for example, if objects of di
A SET operation that writes memory may have the same value as an earlier
store but if the alias sets of the new and earlier store do not conflict
then the set is not truly redundant. This can happen, for example, if
objects of different types share a stack slot.
To fix this we define a new fu
