https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43226
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
||a/show_bug.cgi?id=78546
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
The code does this now:
/* Don't let a relocatable value get a negative coeff. */
if (poly_int_rtx_p (op1) && GET_MODE (op0) != VOIDmode)
return simplify_gen_binary (PLUS, mode,
op0,
neg_poly_int_rtx (mode, op1));
Which does:
/* Negate I, which satisfies poly_int_rtx_p. MODE is the mode of I. */
static rtx
neg_poly_int_rtx (machine_mode mode, const_rtx i)
{
return immed_wide_int_const (-wi::to_poly_wide (i, mode), mode);
}
Poly_int's operator- does:
template
inline POLY_POLY_RESULT (N, Ca, Ca)
operator - (const poly_int_pod )
{
typedef POLY_CAST (Ca, Ca) NCa;
typedef POLY_POLY_COEFF (Ca, Ca) C;
poly_int r;
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < N; i++)
POLY_SET_COEFF (C, r, i, -NCa (a.coeffs[i]));
return r;
}
typedef poly_int > >
rtx_to_poly_wide_ref;
operator- on generic_wide_int calls wi::neg which does:
/* Return -x. */
template
inline WI_UNARY_RESULT (T)
wi::neg (const T )
{
return sub (0, x);
}
wi::sub only uses `unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT`
r10-3327-g681fc0fa40cc moved it over to poly_int.
But r7-4950-gd057004733e8 (PR 78546) fixed this bug really for the same reason
why it was reported here but for HWI==64 and int128_t.
I am going to mark this as a dup of bug 78546 because the bug is the same.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 78546 ***
