[llvm-dev] RFC: Resolving TBAA issues

[Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev]

"then gcc does the right thing in both cases."
There is no way it would ever affect execution semantics except through
deletion, so ...


On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Ivan A. Kosarev <ikosarev at accesssoftek.com
> wrote:

> Can you share the snippets you use?
>
> Reloading x->i may affect performance, but not necessarily execution
> semantics.


Sure


> So if it is not required to reload the value (what I think is true), then
> gcc does the right thing in both cases.

I'm unsure what you are trying to say here :)
The whole point of TBAA is about whether you are eliminate the
loads/stores.  So yes, gcc is always going to do the right thing, if you
believe it's okay to remove the load/stores.

That's equivalent to saying "as long as it does nothing or something, it
was okay".
:)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170819/b21389ec/attachment.html>