------- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-28 15:09 -------
I still think that handling NULL from evolution_part_in_loop_num is the
correct thing to do. Even if you need to move this check to the analysis
phase.
The interesting thing is that the access function during
vect_analyze_scalar_cycles_1 is
{2, +, 1}_1
which is because after the vectorized part of the loop the prologue
remains which has a non-constant evolution start.
So with the reasoning that you analyzed the access function of the
original loop properly you can probably strip the conversion that
confuses you at just vect_update_ivs_after_vectorizer. (Or store
the relevant information during analysis where the evolution is
still simple enough)
This would fix the ICE, but I wonder if it may cause wrong code because
of mismatched types somehow.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36630
