https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77908
Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> If I change bignumber to "huge(1_long) -1" the testcase works correctly.
Confirmed. This is another instance of undefined behavior when the upper bound
cannot be incremented without wrapping.
> Unless someone has an idea how to generate the loop so the index doesn't
> wrap around while at the same time not regressing in performance,
> I'd say we close this as WONTFIX.
Done.
