https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96989
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw at gdcproject dot org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> I guess an actual example is still helpful
After spending a few hours away and looking back, it looks like it only happens
when using any example related to pr96564 or pr96987.
This correctly prints 'a' in the warning message.
---
int fun (uint *x) {
uint *a = void;
return a[2];
}
---
Whereas this print '*_3'
---
import gcc.builtins;
int fun (uint *x) {
uint *a = cast(uint*)__builtin_malloc(*x);
return a[2];
}
---
This prints 'MEM[(int *)a_6 + 8B]'
---
import gcc.builtins;
int fun (uint *x) {
int *a = cast(int*)__builtin_malloc(*x);
return a[2];
}
---
So now I'm unsure whether I should wait until the broader regression in the
middle-end is fixed, or just go ahead and implement a d_tree_printer out of
necessity to prevent the middle-end warning about lowered nodes instead of the
original symbol/code it represents.
