https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121000
--- Comment #3 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > > we can cleanly see that _26 is an uninitialized variable, whose > > initialization has been eliminated by the previous optimization already due > > to it's not used in IL at all. > > You indeed cannot use (non-constant) TYPE_SIZE_UNIT in this way. If there > is an ARRAY_REF in the IL you can use array_ref_element_size to get at it. > But arbitrary VLA type sizes to not survive unless you use them in the > original GENERIC IL. yeah, that's the major issue. So, passing the original TYPE_SIZE_UNIT to the call to .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE as one argument should add one explicit usage of the TYPE_SIZE_UNIT in the original IL, and the definition of the TYPE_SIZE_UNIT will survive the compiler optimization till the object size phase. is there any other issue with this solution?
