http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56854
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-04-08
15:03:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> So like this?
>
> Reducing testcase now...
>
> --- tree-ssa-forwprop.c.jj12013-02-25 23:51:21.000000000 +0100
> +++ tree-ssa-forwprop.c2013-04-08 16:12:37.908611768 +0200
> @@ -826,7 +826,11 @@ forward_propagate_addr_expr_1 (tree name
> && integer_zerop (TREE_OPERAND (lhs, 1))
> && useless_type_conversion_p
> (TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (def_rhs, 0)),
> - TREE_TYPE (gimple_assign_rhs1 (use_stmt))))
> + TREE_TYPE (gimple_assign_rhs1 (use_stmt)))
> + /* Don't forward anything into clobber stmts if it would result
> + in the lhs no longer being a MEM_REF. */
> + && (!gimple_clobber_p (use_stmt)
> + || TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (def_rhs, 0)) == MEM_REF))
> {
> tree *def_rhs_basep = &TREE_OPERAND (def_rhs, 0);
> tree new_offset, new_base, saved, new_lhs;
Yes.
