From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-470366-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 30560 invoked by alias); 12 Dec 2014 09:37:27 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 30535 invoked by uid 48); 12 Dec 2014 09:37:23 -0000
From: "ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/64274] [5.0 Regression][ARM] gcc.target/arm/fixed-point-exec.c ICE in fold_binary_loc
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 09:37:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-64274-4-H2MbX7jTSp@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-64274-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-64274-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-12/txt/msg01373.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64274

--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> Does the following fix it?
> 
> diff --git a/gcc/fold-const.c b/gcc/fold-const.c
> index 7b68bea..34f5a6b 100644
> --- a/gcc/fold-const.c
> +++ b/gcc/fold-const.c
> @@ -10082,7 +10082,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc,
>           /* Reassociate (plus (plus (mult) (foo)) (mult)) as
>              (plus (plus (mult) (mult)) (foo)) so that we can
>              take advantage of the factoring cases below.  */
> -         if (TYPE_OVERFLOW_WRAPS (type)
> +         if (ANY_INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type)
> +             && TYPE_OVERFLOW_WRAPS (type)
>               && (((TREE_CODE (arg0) == PLUS_EXPR
>                     || TREE_CODE (arg0) == MINUS_EXPR)
>                    && TREE_CODE (arg1) == MULT_EXPR)

Yes, thanks. I'll bootstrap this on arm-none-linux-gnueabihf it you'd like