On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Richard Sandiford
<richard.sandif...@linaro.org> wrote:
> bit_value_unop and bit_value_binop require constant values
> to be INTEGER_CSTs:
>
> gcc_assert ((rval.lattice_val == CONSTANT
> && TREE_CODE (rval.value) == INTEGER_CST)
> || wi::sext (rval.mask, TYPE_PRECISION (TREE_TYPE (rhs))) ==
> -1);
>
> However, when deciding whether to record a constant value,
> the for_bits_p handling in get_value_for_expr used a negative
> test for ADDR_EXPR:
>
> else if (is_gimple_min_invariant (expr)
> && (!for_bits_p || TREE_CODE (expr) != ADDR_EXPR))
>
> This patch uses a positive test for INTEGER_CST instead.
>
> Existing tests showed the need for this once polynomial constants
> are added.
>
> Tested on aarch64-linux-gnu, x86_64-linux-gnu and powerpc64le-linus-gnu.
> OK to install?
Ok.
Richard.
> Richard
>
>
> 2017-09-20 Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@linaro.org>
> Alan Hayward <alan.hayw...@arm.com>
> David Sherwood <david.sherw...@arm.com>
>
> gcc/
> * tree-ssa-ccp.c (get_value_for_expr): Use a positive test for
> INTEGER_CST rather than a negative test for ADDR_EXPR.
>
> Index: gcc/tree-ssa-ccp.c
> ===================================================================
> --- gcc/tree-ssa-ccp.c 2017-08-10 14:36:07.842479033 +0100
> +++ gcc/tree-ssa-ccp.c 2017-09-20 13:10:31.466004578 +0100
> @@ -617,7 +617,7 @@ get_value_for_expr (tree expr, bool for_
> }
> }
> else if (is_gimple_min_invariant (expr)
> - && (!for_bits_p || TREE_CODE (expr) != ADDR_EXPR))
> + && (!for_bits_p || TREE_CODE (expr) == INTEGER_CST))
> {
> val.lattice_val = CONSTANT;
> val.value = expr;
