------- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-21 16:56
-------
Indeed.
int main(void){
s.b6 = 31;
s.b4 = s.b6 + s.b6;
s.b6 = s.b4;
return s.b6 == 15 ? 0 : 1;
}
Created value VH.0 for 31 + 31
...
<bb 2>:
s.b6 = 31;
D.1530_3 = 31;
D.1531_4 = 31;
D.1530_5 = 31;
D.1531_6 = 31;
D.1532_7 = D.1531_6 + D.1531_6;
D.1533_8 = (<unnamed-unsigned:4>) D.1532_7;
but luckily we don't fold (<unnamed-unsigned:4>) (31 + 31) wrong. (But
note we also don't constant fold)
Still, for folding (<unnamed-unsigned:6>)(<unnamed-unsigned:4>) 31:6
there is a bug in fold_unary as we are calling
fold_convert_const (code, type, arg0) where arg is 31:6 and type
(<unnamed-unsigned:6>) which is obviously a no-op. We should call it
on op0 instead.
I'm going to test this (it's broken on the mainline as well) and commit if
it succeeds.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2007-03-20 10:00:19 |2007-04-21 16:56:26
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31136
