http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55195
--- Comment #13 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-11-07 00:39:01 UTC --- On 6-Nov-12, at 10:40 AM, amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > I see now that you get INT_MAX substituted as the maximum length if > the > value is unknown. > > If you add anything to that, the value becomes negative. > I suppose your only get-out-of-jail card with the current interface, > if > you can't/won't provide a full cond with constant values, is to let > ADJUST_INSN_LENGTH obliterate the MAX_INT, and replace it with > something > sensible. It appears that I need to provide the min length instead of the max length in the opaque condition. Maybe if I just avoid incrementing the length in ADJUST_INSN_LENGTH when it is MAX_INT, then the error won't occur. For the call patterns, the number of permutations got out of hand and impossible to maintain. Dave -- John David Anglin dave.ang...@bell.net
