https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114635
--- Comment #19 from Richard Sandiford <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #14) > Usually targets do have a limit on the actual length but I see > constant_upper_bound_with_limit doesn't query such. But it would > be a more appropriate way to say there might be an actual target limit here? The discussion has moved on, but FWIW: this was a deliberate choice. The thinking at the time was that VLA code should be truly “agnostic” and not hard-code an upper limit. Hard-coding a limit would be hard-coding an assumption that the architectural maximum would never increase in future. (The main counterargument was that any uses of the .B form of TBL would break down for >256-byte vectors. We hardly use such TBLs for autovec though, and could easily choose not to use them at all.) That decision is 8 or 9 years old at this point, so it might seem overly dogmatic now. Even so, I think we should have a strong reason to change tack. It shouldn't just be about trying to avoid poly_ints :)
