On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 12:35 PM Richard Biener wrote:
>
>
> This fixes a missed optimization in the testcase in PR89698
> where we fail to fold an access to a virtual table slot because
> it is (int (*) ()) 0 - yes, an unfolded INTEGER_CST. Callers
> are not happy with this so the following
This fixes a missed optimization in the testcase in PR89698
where we fail to fold an access to a virtual table slot because
it is (int (*) ()) 0 - yes, an unfolded INTEGER_CST. Callers
are not happy with this so the following makes sure to
return a properly folded constant via
