http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49911
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ebotcazou at gcc dot
| |gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-08-01
08:41:40 UTC ---
Ok, I misread. The enum type _does_ have precision 32, even with
-fstrict-enums:
<enumeral_type 0x7ffff5b46b28 RegisterID
type <integer_type 0x7ffff5b46bd0 unsigned int public unsigned SI
size <integer_cst 0x7ffff7ed3dc0 constant 32>
unit size <integer_cst 0x7ffff7ed3de0 constant 4>
align 32 symtab 0 alias set -1 canonical type 0x7ffff5b46bd0 precision
3 min <integer_cst 0x7ffff5b51380 0> max <integer_cst 0x7ffff5b513a0 7>>
unsigned SI size <integer_cst 0x7ffff7ed3dc0 32> unit size <integer_cst
0x7ffff7ed3de0 4>
align 32 symtab 0 alias set -1 canonical type 0x7ffff5b46b28 precision 32
min <integer_cst 0x7ffff5b2e480 0> max <integer_cst 0x7ffff5b513c0 7>
so it's the middle-end/VRP mismatch I suspected in comment #1.
Still SRA should probably not produce enum kind replacements but always
integer kind ones.
So, Eric - are you still objecting to make VRP and the middle-end aligned
by ignoring TYPE_MIN/MAX_VALUE in VRP?
