http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52563
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2012-03-20 09:51:00 UTC --- On Tue, 20 Mar 2012, liujiangning at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52563 > > --- Comment #6 from Jiangning Liu <liujiangning at gcc dot gnu.org> > 2012-03-20 02:32:12 UTC --- > > We cannot fix it without relaxing the POINTER_PLUS_EXPR constraints. > > I was working on that, but as usual the TYPE_IS_SIZETYPE removal > > has priority. > > Do you mean you are also working on removing TYPE_IS_SIZETYPE? Yes. > > > > Please consider fixing/XFAILing the testcases as they still FAIL and you > > are responsible for this. You can open a new enhancement PR covering > > this. > > > > I think 64-bit mode should also have this optimization enabled. XFAIL implies > the missing of this optimization is a correct behavior. But I think this is > not > what I expected. So I don't think we should add XFAIL for this case. Instead I > want to add a new test case scev-5.c to cover 64-bit testing. XFAIL says it's a known failure. Richard.