https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=126939
--- Comment #1 from Manjunath S Matti <mmatti at linux dot vnet.ibm.com> ---
Based on the PR117584 #comment13
The fix is simple
diff --git a/gcc/gimple-lower-bitint.cc b/gcc/gimple-lower-bitint.cc
index 52d0acad249..e36534ba13d 100644
--- a/gcc/gimple-lower-bitint.cc
+++ b/gcc/gimple-lower-bitint.cc
@@ -4594,8 +4594,9 @@ bitint_large_huge::finish_arith_overflow (tree var, tree
obj, tree type,
build_fold_addr_expr (unshare_expr (obj)), off);
g = gimple_build_call (fn, 3,
build_fold_addr_expr (unshare_expr (obj)),
- src, build_int_cst (size_type_node,
- obj_nelts * m_limb_size));
+ build_fold_addr_expr (src),
+ build_int_cst (size_type_node,
+ obj_nelts * m_limb_size));
insert_before (g);
}
if (orig_obj == NULL_TREE && obj)
The mentioned test cases on PowerPC64 pass, I have tested this fix on s390
machine (cfarm191.cfarm.net) and I see no regressions.
