http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53605
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-06-11
10:37:50 UTC ---
Empty arrays have a signed domain with [0, -1] range. So write_array_type
has to be adjusted to
Index: gcc/cp/mangle.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/cp/mangle.c (revision 188384)
+++ gcc/cp/mangle.c (working copy)
@@ -3119,7 +3119,8 @@ write_array_type (const tree type)
{
/* The ABI specifies that we should mangle the number of
elements in the array, not the largest allowed index. */
- max = size_binop (PLUS_EXPR, max, size_one_node);
+ max = size_binop (PLUS_EXPR, max,
+ build_int_cst (TREE_TYPE (max), 1));
write_unsigned_number (tree_low_cst (max, 1));
}
else
or
Index: gcc/cp/mangle.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/cp/mangle.c (revision 188384)
+++ gcc/cp/mangle.c (working copy)
@@ -3119,8 +3119,10 @@ write_array_type (const tree type)
{
/* The ABI specifies that we should mangle the number of
elements in the array, not the largest allowed index. */
- max = size_binop (PLUS_EXPR, max, size_one_node);
- write_unsigned_number (tree_low_cst (max, 1));
+ double_int dmax
+ = double_int_add (tree_to_double_int (max), double_int_one);
+ gcc_assert (double_int_fits_in_uhwi_p (dmax));
+ write_unsigned_number (dmax.low);
}
else
{
but I wonder about the inconsistency between the max == INTEGER_CST and
!INTEGER_CST case where we do _not_ add one to the expression to be mangled.
I'll give the double-int variant testing.
