> I guess tmp is not short unsigned int * but some other pointer type,
> right? But bufend is short unsigned int *?
Both are "short unsigned int *" - pointers to shorts.
> Can you open a bugzilla for this? It should be not too difficult to track
> down the piece of IVOPTs that creates that con
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 5:09 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
>> As I repeatedly said having sizetype of a different precision than
>> pointer types will cause all sorts of problems ;)
>
> And as I've rebutted repeatedly, I can't change the chip.
>
>> The middle-end generally assumes it can cast between siz
> As I repeatedly said having sizetype of a different precision than
> pointer types will cause all sorts of problems ;)
And as I've rebutted repeatedly, I can't change the chip.
> The middle-end generally assumes it can cast between sizetype and
> pointers arbitrarily.
Bad assumption. It will
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 1:46 AM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> I'm looking a failure for m32c-elf (-mcpu=m32c) in
> gcc.c-torture/execute/2412-6.c.
>
> I've narrowed it down to a transformation done in 107t.ivopts.
>
> In 104t.cunroll: (tmp_9 and tmp_16 are 24-bit pointer values):
>
> tmp_9 = tmp_16 +
I'm looking a failure for m32c-elf (-mcpu=m32c) in
gcc.c-torture/execute/2412-6.c.
I've narrowed it down to a transformation done in 107t.ivopts.
In 104t.cunroll: (tmp_9 and tmp_16 are 24-bit pointer values):
tmp_9 = tmp_16 + 2;
if (bufend_6(D) > tmp_9)
but in 107t.ivopts:
tmp_9 = t
