[Bug middle-end/21858] [4.1 Regression] ICE in compare_values, at tree-vrp.c:301

["dnovillo at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

------- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com  2005-06-01 19:38 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.1 Regression] ICE in compare_values, at tree-vrp.c:301

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 07:31:24PM -0000, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> 
> ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-06-01 19:31 -------
> Confirmed, reduced testcase:
> unsigned int dsdblm_GetBlockAddress();
> void error_LocalAssert(void);
> int dsdblm_CreateBlock(unsigned int address)
> {
>    address = dsdblm_GetBlockAddress();
>    if (address >= (void*)0x00020000)
>      error_LocalAssert();
>    return address;
> }
> This is either a front-end bug or a fold bug.
> 
Is this legal C?

vrp15.c: In function `dsdblm_CreateBlock':
vrp15.c:6: warning: comparison between pointer and integer

This is very similar to what I found in the Fortran FE a few days
ago.  The .gimple form is already "wrong":

  D.1242 = dsdblm_GetBlockAddress ();
  address = D.1242;
  if (address > 131071B)

We lose, or never emit, the cast to convert the constant to integer.

However, the optimizers should probably not be ICEing here.  I
will remove the assert in compare_values, to simply refuse to do
anything when pointers and non-pointers are mixed in the same
predicate.


Diego.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21858