Re: [patch] for PR 17531

[Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>]

On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 01:05:06AM +0200, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
> > is reversed, or there's some later substitution of utype for ctype.
> > In either case, UTYPE doesn't have enough precision to compute CTYPE,
> > and thus *any* answer you give is incorrect.
> 
> this is because you read it wrong.  You need to express USE using CAND,
> therefore this test is correct -- you need type of CAND (ctype) to be
> at least as wide as the type of USE (utype), so that you have enough
> information.

In which case, the clause "or there's some later substitution of
utype for ctype" applies.

Dude!  Think for one second!  How can it possibly be correct to be
wanting to compute "(short) &a" in the context of an IV?  Something
must be broken somewhere!



r~