On November 20, 2015 8:58:15 PM GMT+01:00, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >In this bug, we hit the (A & sign-bit) != 0 -> A < 0 transformation. >Because of delayed folding, the operands aren't fully folded yet, so we > >have NOP_EXPRs around INTEGER_CSTs, and so calling wi::only_sign_bit_p >ICEs. We've been seeing several similar bugs, where code calls >integer_zerop and therefore assumes that they have an INTEGER_CST, but >in fact integer_zerop does STRIP_NOPS. > >This patch changes the pattern to only match if the operand is actually > >an INTEGER_CST. Alternatively we could call tree_strip_nop_conversions > >on the operand, but I would expect that to have issues when the >conversion changes the signedness of the type. > >OK if testing passes?
What happens if we remove the nops stripping from integer_zerop? Do other integer predicates strip nops? Richard.
