https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103691
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> To me it looks like the PR52329 change wasn't correct. In particular, it
> should have been using true as the second argument and not false and
> therefore should have been removed in the r12-21-g0bf8cd9d5e8ac changes
> rather than kept.
> If I modify the testcase from a(0) to a(2), then I see
> pr103691.f90.037t.fre1: # DEBUG D.4293 => &a[0]
> and
> pr103691.f90.038t.evrp: # DEBUG D.4293 => &2.0e+0
> The &2.0e+0 is just a wrong-debug, debug info was supposed to contain
> address of
> a, not address of some constant that happens to be in the first element of
> the array.
> fold_stmt_1 earlier has:
> case GIMPLE_DEBUG:
> if (gimple_debug_bind_p (stmt))
> {
> tree *val = gimple_debug_bind_get_value_ptr (stmt);
> if (*val
> && (REFERENCE_CLASS_P (*val)
> || TREE_CODE (*val) == ADDR_EXPR)
> && maybe_canonicalize_mem_ref_addr (val, true))
> changed = true;
> }
> which I believe should perform whatever PR52329 was meant to deal with.
> So I think
> else if (val
> && TREE_CODE (val) == ADDR_EXPR)
> {
> tree ref = TREE_OPERAND (val, 0);
> tree tem = maybe_fold_reference (ref);
> if (tem)
> {
> tem = build_fold_addr_expr_with_type (tem, TREE_TYPE
> (val));
> gimple_debug_bind_set_value (stmt, tem);
> changed = true;
> }
> }
> should be just dropped.
Agreed.
