[Bug c/51730] [4.7 Regression] autoconf 2.60 through 2.67 stdbool.h check fails with GCC 4.7

["rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51730

Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2012-01-02
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot       |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
                   |gnu.org                     |
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-01-02 14:01:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> 
> >          char digs[] = "0123456789";
> >          int xlcbug = 1 / (&(digs + 5)[-2 + (_Bool) 1] == &digs[4] ? 1 : -1);
> > check.  Until http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172958
> > GCC has been accepting this though, and I suppose we don't want to fold array
> > refs that way when generating code.  Would it be possible to fold it that way
> > (try harder) just when we know we are not going to generate code based on it
> > (or when we know we'd error out otherwise)?  I know it sounds like an ugly
> 
> As I understand it, the point of that commit was that the conversion of 
> all array references to pointer arithmetic (losing all information about 
> signs of indices) was problematic.  But it should still be valid to fold a 
> comparison that way: if the addresses being compared have the same base 
> object and all offsets are constant integers, a final byte offset for each 
> address can be computed mod the size of the address space and it's OK to 
> fold based on comparing those offsets (if the actual, signed offsets 
> involved overflow anywhere, that would have been execution-time undefined 
> behavior).  That is, I think it would be better to fix this by improving 
> the folding of address comparisons, rather than by changing how array 
> references are expanded.

I think what changed is that we keep &digs[4] in the IL now, rather than
representing it as &digs + 4.  So it seems to be some missed folding.

Indeed we have (char *) &digs + 4 == &digs[4]

I'll look into this.