https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85450
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2018-04-18
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
For for-3.c it is:
static void
expand_omp_for_static_nochunk (struct omp_region *region,
struct omp_for_data *fd,
gimple *inner_stmt)
{
...
if (POINTER_TYPE_P (type))
t = fold_build_pointer_plus (n1, t);
else
t = fold_build2 (PLUS_EXPR, type, t, n1);
t = fold_convert (TREE_TYPE (startvar), t);
where a fix could be to do
Index: omp-expand.c
===================================================================
--- omp-expand.c (revision 259457)
+++ omp-expand.c (working copy)
@@ -3501,7 +3501,10 @@ expand_omp_for_static_nochunk (struct om
t = fold_convert (itype, s0);
t = fold_build2 (MULT_EXPR, itype, t, step);
if (POINTER_TYPE_P (type))
- t = fold_build_pointer_plus (n1, t);
+ {
+ t = fold_build_pointer_plus (n1, t);
+ t = fold_convert (unsigned_type_for (TREE_TYPE (n1)), t);
+ }
else
t = fold_build2 (PLUS_EXPR, type, t, n1);
t = fold_convert (TREE_TYPE (startvar), t);
but there are likely a few "copies" of the code. The for-3.c testcase
also exercises the following spot:
@@ -3515,7 +3518,10 @@ expand_omp_for_static_nochunk (struct om
t = fold_convert (itype, e0);
t = fold_build2 (MULT_EXPR, itype, t, step);
if (POINTER_TYPE_P (type))
- t = fold_build_pointer_plus (n1, t);
+ {
+ t = fold_build_pointer_plus (n1, t);
+ t = fold_convert (unsigned_type_for (TREE_TYPE (n1)), t);
+ }
else
t = fold_build2 (PLUS_EXPR, type, t, n1);
t = fold_convert (TREE_TYPE (startvar), t);
and that's still not enough to fix it fully...
Note that I think even for GENERIC using fold_convert the original way
is wrong. Given fold_convert is "interesting" we might consider using
POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED there... (ok, I didn't suggest that).
