On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 06/10/2011 04:35 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > > I'm out of good suggestions ;) You can do the same-qualifier matching > > and simply have a mismatched array element vs. array-ref type. > > But I need to allow different qualifiers, too. > > > We could also argue that whoever calls fold_indirect_ref_1 with TYPE > > that doesn't even have TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (op0 (!))) > > == TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (type) is broken. > > Right, I only want to fold if the main variants match. > > > Thus we could argue that > > even ignoring qualifiers is ok - but I'd be worried about folding > > *((volatile int *)&a[0] + 1) to a[1] with lost volatile qualification. > > Right. > > It would be correct to fold it to > > VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<volatile int,a[1]>
No, it wouldn't be correct. It isn't correct to fold it to an array-ref that isn't volatile. Richard.
