http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46945
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-12-15
11:15:30 UTC ---
The problem is probably that the -1 in
D.1556 = ((logical(kind=4)) __builtin_expect ((<unnamed-unsigned:64>) D.1555 >
-1, 0) ? 1 : 0) + D.1554;
has TREE_OVERFLOW set, D.1555 is determined by VRP to be 0 and from the
overflowed constant VRP determines that 0 > -1 (the type of both is
sizetype, i.e. unsigned, but with the weirdo semantics).
This is created in gfc_array_init_size:
4160 /* First check for overflow. Since an array of type character can
4161 have zero element_size, we must check for that before
4162 dividing. */
4163 tmp = fold_build2_loc (input_location, TRUNC_DIV_EXPR,
4164 sizetype,
4165 TYPE_MAX_VALUE (sizetype), element_size);
4166 tmp = fold_build3_loc (input_location, COND_EXPR, integer_type_node,
4167 gfc_unlikely (fold_build2_loc (input_location, LT_EXPR,
4168 boolean_type_node, tmp,
4169 stride)),
4170 integer_one_node, integer_zero_node);
I'd say it is very questionable to use sizetype here.
