https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89223
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The #c9 patch looks good, but I don't view #c5 as papering over issues, but
rather as an optimization and desirable change.
The expansion of ARRAY_REFs is done through calling get_inner_reference and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89223
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 45624
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45624=edit
patch I am testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89223
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89223
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
The chrec in question is {8, +, 0xfffe}_1 which
wraps. The dependence code basically assumes infinite precision integers
(which we don't have) and thus cannot really handle the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89223
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
The error is clearly in the dataref code, first that it ends up asserting
instead of failing analysis and second that it, dependent on context(!) keeps
to-be
interpreted as "signed" values sizetype
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89223
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89223
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I guess either we should lower ARRAY_REF indexes with precisions higher than
pointer precision to that smaller precision early (during gimplification
e.g.?), though not really sure what effect would that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89223
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
