--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-26
03:48 ---
Here is an interesting thing:
if we do:
int f[3];
int *h(void)
{
return &f[-1];
}
---
The C front-end expands it like:
(insn 10 9 11 (set (reg:SI 60)
(const_int -4 [0xfffc])) -1 (nil)
(nil
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-25
22:49 ---
This happens in Jikes 1.2.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-06
13:32 ---
*** Bug 23260 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
17:02 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-01
00:17 ---
: Search converges between 2004-08-30-trunk (#529) and 2004-08-31-trunk (#530).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21135
--- Additional Comments From kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu
2005-05-30 18:36 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] &a[-2] ICE at the top level
The difference in the handling of these two expressions is that
get_inner_reference sets the "offset" out-parameter for &a[
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-30
17:18 ---
I'm not sure this is really a C++ bug.
The C++ front end provides the same representation to the middle end for
"&a[-2]" as it does for "&a[2]". It would be wrong for the middle end to say
that this expre
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-20
23:46 ---
Confirmed as a regression.
I think this was caused by the C++ front-end no longer lowering &a[const] to &a
+ const.
--
What|Removed |Added
-
