> Yes, of course, but it is the C frontent that is producing > &a + (int *)-4, not me. I'm just trying to work around this... > > In fact, it is c-common.c:2289 that does -4 -> (int *)-4 > conversion, but pointer_int_sum is already called with PLUS_EXPR. > build_unary_op unconditionally expands &x[y] to x+y, regardless > of the sign of y. Of course the standard says that they are equal. > But is &x[-1] == x + (int *)4*(int *)-1 ? From this follows that > we have no way to convert this back to &x[-1], as we loose the > sign information by the (int *) cast. > > How do the loop optimizers handle this - negative offsets by relying > on unsigned pointer wrap-around?
- request the front-end be fixed?
