https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105663
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #4) > Or perhaps there shouldnt be > set (BIT_NOT_EXPR, op_bitwise_not); > set (BIT_XOR_EXPR, op_bitwise_xor); > > operations on pointer values? I see also support if ranger then just gives up (VARYING) that's a reasonable thing for pointers. > set (BIT_AND_EXPR, op_pointer_and); > set (BIT_IOR_EXPR, op_pointer_or); > > but those are pointer specific versions...
