[Bug middle-end/90514] Issue about enum type in gcc tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90514 --- Comment #4 from JunMa --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > (In reply to JunMa from comment #2) > > I had got confused by the comments in vrp pass. the condition > > if ((kind != ENUM1) && (kind != ENUM2)) > > is not always false, and cannot be folded to if (0). > > Also the code deals with pr23046 is out of data, and should be removed. > > That was C++ code rather than C code and C++ which has different rules than > C (at least with -fstrict-enums). The code is not out of date for gimple > types. Since the types in Gimple can have more well defined behaviors which > are not exposed via C or C++ front-ends. NOTE there could be an Ada code > which hits the same failure (I don't know Ada that well but I do know the > Ada front-end supports more features of the GCC middle-end than either of > the C or C++ front-ends). Since gimple folding has changed so much, we can easily support folding it in match.pd rather than checking this in here.
[Bug middle-end/90514] Issue about enum type in gcc tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90514 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to JunMa from comment #2) > I had got confused by the comments in vrp pass. the condition > if ((kind != ENUM1) && (kind != ENUM2)) > is not always false, and cannot be folded to if (0). > Also the code deals with pr23046 is out of data, and should be removed. That was C++ code rather than C code and C++ which has different rules than C (at least with -fstrict-enums). The code is not out of date for gimple types. Since the types in Gimple can have more well defined behaviors which are not exposed via C or C++ front-ends. NOTE there could be an Ada code which hits the same failure (I don't know Ada that well but I do know the Ada front-end supports more features of the GCC middle-end than either of the C or C++ front-ends).
[Bug middle-end/90514] Issue about enum type in gcc tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90514 --- Comment #2 from JunMa --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > Are you saying the precision should be 1? If so then no, that would be > invalid as in C, enum have the full range of the underlying type and is well > defined to have values of 3 or higher in the enum variable. Thanks for explain. I had got confused by the comments in vrp pass. the condition if ((kind != ENUM1) && (kind != ENUM2)) is not always false, and cannot be folded to if (0). Also the code deals with pr23046 is out of data, and should be removed.
[Bug middle-end/90514] Issue about enum type in gcc tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90514 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Are you saying the precision should be 1? If so then no, that would be invalid as in C, enum have the full range of the underlying type and is well defined to have values of 3 or higher in the enum variable.
