bit_value_unop and bit_value_binop require constant values
to be INTEGER_CSTs:
gcc_assert ((rval.lattice_val == CONSTANT
&& TREE_CODE (rval.value) == INTEGER_CST)
|| wi::sext (rval.mask, TYPE_PRECISION (TREE_TYPE (rhs))) == -1);
However, when deciding whether to record a constant value,
the for_bits_p handling in get_value_for_expr used a negative
test for ADDR_EXPR:
else if (is_gimple_min_invariant (expr)
&& (!for_bits_p || TREE_CODE (expr) != ADDR_EXPR))
This patch uses a positive test for INTEGER_CST instead.
Existing tests showed the need for this once polynomial constants
are added.
2017-09-21 Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@linaro.org>
Alan Hayward <alan.hayward@arm.com>
David Sherwood <david.sherwood@arm.com>
gcc/
* tree-ssa-ccp.c (get_value_for_expr): Use a positive test for
INTEGER_CST rather than a negative test for ADDR_EXPR.
Co-Authored-By: Alan Hayward <alan.hayward@arm.com>
Co-Authored-By: David Sherwood <david.sherwood@arm.com>
From-SVN: r253056
+2017-09-21 Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@linaro.org>
+ Alan Hayward <alan.hayward@arm.com>
+ David Sherwood <david.sherwood@arm.com>
+
+ * tree-ssa-ccp.c (get_value_for_expr): Use a positive test for
+ INTEGER_CST rather than a negative test for ADDR_EXPR.
+
2017-09-21 Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@linaro.org>
Alan Hayward <alan.hayward@arm.com>
David Sherwood <david.sherwood@arm.com>
}
}
else if (is_gimple_min_invariant (expr)
- && (!for_bits_p || TREE_CODE (expr) != ADDR_EXPR))
+ && (!for_bits_p || TREE_CODE (expr) == INTEGER_CST))
{
val.lattice_val = CONSTANT;
val.value = expr;