Hi!

As the following testcases show (the latter only if I revert the
temporary reversion of the C++ large array speedup), the FEs aren't
really consistent in the type of array CONSTRUCTOR_ELTS indexes,
it can be bitsizetype, but can be sizetype as well.
Given that everything else is able to cope with it just fine,
I'm using build_int_cst which also doesn't care what type it is,
instead of bitsize_int, which I've used in PR117190 fix (previously
it was size_int).

Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?

2025-01-03  Jakub Jelinek  <ja...@redhat.com>

        PR c++/118275
        * varasm.cc (array_size_for_constructor): Use build_int_cst
        with TREE_TYPE (index) as first argument, instead of bitsize_int.

        * g++.dg/cpp/embed-18.C: New test.
        * g++.dg/ext/flexary41.C: New test.

--- gcc/varasm.cc.jj    2025-01-02 11:23:27.000000000 +0100
+++ gcc/varasm.cc       2025-01-02 15:01:05.488162995 +0100
@@ -5648,7 +5648,8 @@ array_size_for_constructor (tree val)
        index = TREE_OPERAND (index, 1);
       if (value && TREE_CODE (value) == RAW_DATA_CST)
        index = size_binop (PLUS_EXPR, index,
-                           bitsize_int (RAW_DATA_LENGTH (value) - 1));
+                           build_int_cst (TREE_TYPE (index),
+                                          RAW_DATA_LENGTH (value) - 1));
       if (max_index == NULL_TREE || tree_int_cst_lt (max_index, index))
        max_index = index;
     }
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp/embed-18.C.jj      2025-01-02 14:48:07.819954910 
+0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp/embed-18.C 2025-01-02 14:48:47.943398108 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+// PR c++/118275
+// { dg-do compile }
+// { dg-options "" }
+
+struct A { int a; char b[]; };
+void bar (A *);
+
+void
+foo ()
+{
+  static struct A a = { .a = 1, .b = {
+#embed __FILE__
+                                    } };
+  bar (&a);
+}
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/flexary41.C.jj     2025-01-02 14:49:42.029647539 
+0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/flexary41.C        2025-01-02 14:49:35.472738531 
+0100
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+// PR c++/118275
+// { dg-do compile }
+// { dg-options "" }
+
+struct A { int a; char b[]; };
+void bar (A *);
+
+void
+foo ()
+{
+  static struct A a = { .a = 1, .b = {
+0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
+0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
+0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
+0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
+0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
+0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
+0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
+0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
+0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
+0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
+                                    } };
+  bar (&a);
+}

        Jakub

Reply via email to