------- Comment #8 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-26 16:48 -------
I disagree with this:
> working around these issues where they pop up is the way
> to go in the near future.
I think we need to be a bit more ambitious, and that does not mean separating
overflow/non-overflow tree codes. For example in Eric's testcase, the way to
go would have been not to reassociate if there was a TREE_OVERFLOW on resulting
constant operands. It might even be as easy as
if (con0 && TREE_OVERFLOW (con0))
return NULL_TREE;
(search for "con0 =" in fold-const.c to get the context).
For 4.5, I suggest applying Jakub's patch very early and fixing bugs that
result. If it turns out it's a huge Pandora's box, we can always re-revert the
patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38934
