Sorry it took me so long to get to this.
> You're not showing where this comes from, so it's hard to say. However
> D.1480 is created by the gimplifier, not the Ada front end. There could
> easily be a typing problem in the tree there (e.g., that of the
> subtraction) but I can't tell for sure.
As it turned out, there was.
So, after calling sinfo__chars() and subtracting 300000361, the
FE is emitting that range check. AFAICT, the call to
sinfo__chars(e_5) comes from ada/sem_intr.adb:148
Nam : constant Name_Id := Chars (E);
and 'if (D.1480_32 <= 1)' is at line 155:
I'd also assumed this was where the bogus tree came from, but I was wrong.
The node in question was not made by the Ada front end but by
build_range_check in clearly incorrect code that does the subtraction in the
wrong type.
This fixes that problem. Are you in a position to check if it fixes the
original issue?
*** fold-const.c 25 Jun 2005 01:59:57 -0000 1.599
--- fold-const.c 27 Jun 2005 20:44:56 -0000
*************** build_range_check (tree type, tree exp,
*** 4027,4034 ****
if (value != 0 && ! TREE_OVERFLOW (value))
! return build_range_check (type,
! fold_build2 (MINUS_EXPR, etype, exp, low),
! 1, fold_convert (etype, integer_zero_node),
! value);
return 0;
--- 4027,4045 ----
if (value != 0 && ! TREE_OVERFLOW (value))
! {
! /* There is no requirement that LOW be within the range of ETYPE
! if the latter is a subtype. It must, however, be within the base
! type of ETYPE. So be sure we do the subtraction in that type. */
! if (TREE_TYPE (etype))
! {
! etype = TREE_TYPE (etype);
! value = fold_convert (etype, value);
! }
!
! return build_range_check (type,
! fold_build2 (MINUS_EXPR, etype, exp, low),
! 1, fold_convert (etype, integer_zero_node),
! value);
! }
return 0;
