On Tue, 26 Feb 2019, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Seems valid_constant_size_p has been written with the expectation that only
> sizetype/ssizetype constants will be passed to it, otherwise it couldn't
> ever just blindly test tree_int_cst_sign_bit (size) for unsigned
> INTEGER_CSTs and complain
On 2/26/19 3:44 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
Seems valid_constant_size_p has been written with the expectation that only
sizetype/ssizetype constants will be passed to it, otherwise it couldn't
ever just blindly test tree_int_cst_sign_bit (size) for unsigned
INTEGER_CSTs and complain cst_size_to
Hi!
Seems valid_constant_size_p has been written with the expectation that only
sizetype/ssizetype constants will be passed to it, otherwise it couldn't
ever just blindly test tree_int_cst_sign_bit (size) for unsigned
INTEGER_CSTs and complain cst_size_too_big.
Unfortunately a recent patch started