From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-497263-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 26608 invoked by alias); 15 Sep 2015 14:21:25 -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 26548 invoked by uid 48); 15 Sep 2015 14:21:21 -0000
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/67442] [5/6 Regression] GCC 5.2.0 on x86_64 creates invalid address on specific array index calculation through pointer
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:21:00 -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: 5.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution:
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status assigned_to
Message-ID: <bug-67442-4-xTkAGfM4bc@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-67442-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-67442-4@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: 2015-09/txt/msg01241.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67442

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Testing

@@ -6166,8 +6173,12 @@ extract_muldiv_1 (tree t, tree c, enum t
              && ((sign == UNSIGNED && tcode != MULT_EXPR) || sign == SIGNED))
            overflow_p = true;
          if (!overflow_p)
-           return fold_build2 (tcode, ctype, fold_convert (ctype, op0),
-                               wide_int_to_tree (ctype, mul));
+           {
+             mul = wide_int::from (mul, TYPE_PRECISION (ctype),
+                                   TYPE_SIGN (TREE_TYPE (op1)));
+             return fold_build2 (tcode, ctype, fold_convert (ctype, op0),
+                                 wide_int_to_tree (ctype, mul));
+           }
        }

       /* If these operations "cancel" each other, we have the main