Re: [PATCH] Fix internal error on small array with negative lower bound

2023-05-18 Thread Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
> Am 18.05.2023 um 19:44 schrieb Eric Botcazou : > >  >> >> Would it be better to use >> >> wi::to_uhwi (wi::to_wide (local->index) - wi::to_wide (local->min_index)) >> >> to honor the actual sign of the indices? I think nothing forbids frontends >> to use a signed TYPE_DOMAIN here? But

Re: [PATCH] Fix internal error on small array with negative lower bound

2023-05-18 Thread Eric Botcazou via Gcc-patches
> Would it be better to use > > wi::to_uhwi (wi::to_wide (local->index) - wi::to_wide (local->min_index)) > > to honor the actual sign of the indices? I think nothing forbids frontends > to use a signed TYPE_DOMAIN here? But the difference should be always > representable in an unsigned value

Re: [PATCH] Fix internal error on small array with negative lower bound

2023-05-18 Thread Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 11:51 AM Eric Botcazou via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Hi, > > Ada supports arrays with negative indices, although the internal index type is > sizetype like in other languages, which is unsigned. This means that negative > values are represented by very large numbers, which wo