https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71372
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Thu, 2 Jun 2016, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71372 > > --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #8) > > On Thu, 2 Jun 2016, rguenther at suse dot de wrote: > > Actually it's not a bug of those but of the callers (given fold_binary > > doesn't get to see that flag). > > Exactly. > > > > > > see just > > > > switch (TREE_CODE_LENGTH (code)) > > > > { > > > > case 1: > > > > op0 = TREE_OPERAND (t, 0); > > > > tem = fold_unary_loc (loc, code, type, op0); > > > > return tem ? tem : expr; > > > > case 2: > > > > op0 = TREE_OPERAND (t, 0); > > > > op1 = TREE_OPERAND (t, 1); > > > > tem = fold_binary_loc (loc, code, type, op0, op1); > > > > return tem ? tem : expr; > > > > case 3: > > > > op0 = TREE_OPERAND (t, 0); > > > > op1 = TREE_OPERAND (t, 1); > > > > op2 = TREE_OPERAND (t, 2); > > > > tem = fold_ternary_loc (loc, code, type, op0, op1, op2); > > > > return tem ? tem : expr; > > > > without really trying to preserve anything. > > > > This would need to do the fixup in case of tcc_reference codes. > > Fortunately fold () calls are rare. > > Well, both C and C++ FEs now call them pretty much on everything. So > certainly > not rare. (something to fix) Well. So we need to fixup things in fold () - that part is latent everywhere then. But the actual issue for the testcaseis in cp_fold.
