https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646
--- Comment #30 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646 > > --- Comment #29 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > Created attachment 38316 > --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38316&action=edit > Fix storing access size to conditions > > Honza asked me to also come up with a version of the patch where we > store access size to the condition (as a HOST_WIDE_INT) and use that > for access size comparisons, so that we avoid any potential confusion > (for example if the loaded value is run through a NOP_EXPR after > loading but before the described use). > > So this is it. It survives both regular and LTO bootstrap and testing > on an x86_64-linux. Any reason it's not unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT size?
