On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 01:27:45PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: <snip>
Thanks for the explanation. > I think the thing to do is create yet another memory constraint, that is just > an offsetable address, with the bottom 2 bits 0, and no PRE_MODIFY, etc. That sounds best yes. The current patch seemed fragile and a bit confusing / surprising to me, but you now found an actual problem as well. > > 20599 lines, can you minimize this a bit? If not, maybe we should just > > do without testcase here. > > I doubt I could minimize it, since it is only this one source so far that has > shown to be failure. I can delete it if you prefer. Huge testcases for simple problems does not really scale. Segher
