In this PR (well, in the first testcase in it), the problem was that
fold_range_test got op0 and op1 of a COMPLEX_TYPE, subsequent call
of make_range then failed because it wants to create an integer constant
using build_int_cst - and that can't handle COMPLEX_TYPE. Also,
we can't just compare complex numbers, so I think it's sane to bail out
if fold_range_test isn't dealing with integer types...
I didn't want to put the check between the declarations, so the
make_range calls were moved slightly below.
Regtested/bootstrapped on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk?
2013-10-21 Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com>
PR middle-end/58809
* fold-const.c (fold_range_test): Return 0 if the type is not
an integral type.
testsuite/
* gcc.dg/gomp/pr58809.c: New test.
--- gcc/fold-const.c.mp 2013-10-21 16:12:31.494179417 +0200
+++ gcc/fold-const.c 2013-10-21 16:19:08.673580775 +0200
@@ -4984,12 +4984,16 @@ fold_range_test (location_t loc, enum tr
int in0_p, in1_p, in_p;
tree low0, low1, low, high0, high1, high;
bool strict_overflow_p = false;
- tree lhs = make_range (op0, &in0_p, &low0, &high0, &strict_overflow_p);
- tree rhs = make_range (op1, &in1_p, &low1, &high1, &strict_overflow_p);
- tree tem;
+ tree tem, lhs, rhs;
const char * const warnmsg = G_("assuming signed overflow does not occur "
"when simplifying range test");
+ if (!INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type))
+ return 0;
+
+ lhs = make_range (op0, &in0_p, &low0, &high0, &strict_overflow_p);
+ rhs = make_range (op1, &in1_p, &low1, &high1, &strict_overflow_p);
+
/* If this is an OR operation, invert both sides; we will invert
again at the end. */
if (or_op)
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/gomp/pr58809.c.mp 2013-10-21 16:12:13.333114856
+0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/gomp/pr58809.c 2013-10-21 16:11:49.296022857 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+/* PR middle-end/58809 */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-fopenmp -O" } */
+
+int i;
+#pragma omp threadprivate (i)
+
+void foo()
+{
+ _Complex int j;
+#pragma omp parallel copyin (i) reduction (&&:j)
+ ;
+}
Marek
