http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48031
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2011-03-10 13:07:16 UTC --- On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48031 > > --- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-03-10 > 13:04:17 UTC --- > > That would work, too. You see no problem with a NULL operand 3 > > of array-refs? If you create an array with a variable lower bound, > > take its address, convert it to pointer to element type and > > dereference that, would it expand ok if it does not have the > > element size set properly? At least get_inner_reference seems to > > unconditionally multiply with array_ref_element_size () * index, > > and array_ref_element_size () does not work for variable-size types > > if the array-ref doesn't have the gimplified value. > > Isn't gimplification supposed to populate this operand #3? Ugh, yeah it does - but, do we really rely on this? Probably yes ... so setting operand #2 in the folder is not necessary either. Ok, I'll go with the in_gimple_form check.
