From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-502907-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 74272 invoked by alias); 13 Jun 2019 15:34:48 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 74264 invoked by uid 89); 13 Jun 2019 15:34:48 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_1,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=
X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 15:34:47 +0000
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16])	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))	(No client certificate requested)	by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7ACC82F8BD7;	Thu, 13 Jun 2019 15:34:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-116-52.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.52])	by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21E845C28C;	Thu, 13 Jun 2019 15:34:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1])	by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x5DFYgFs018563;	Thu, 13 Jun 2019 17:34:43 +0200
Received: (from jakub@localhost)	by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x5DFYZD5018562;	Thu, 13 Jun 2019 17:34:35 +0200
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 15:34:00 -0000
From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
To: Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com>
Cc: Rainer Orth <ro@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de>,        Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>,        gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] include MEM_REF type in tree dumps (PR 90676)
Message-ID: <20190613153435.GC19695@tucnak>
Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
References: <CAFiYyc0YuNM2oV8J1CeNZSPJce_YZ5-_4=9ZSSTFzPURX6-AnQ@mail.gmail.com> <6eb19c92-afbf-d520-12f8-bc7a86af370e@gmail.com> <20190610192941.GD19695@tucnak> <f89f44c6-f7fc-e82e-c59d-b3170e453368@gmail.com> <CAFiYyc2hRh=xeFMtYQjXXzVnD28nKUnC7ghnY4Msu_6N88P_xg@mail.gmail.com> <ydd4l4uzdx4.fsf@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> <90b640ce-f635-dbff-6b4d-757f3710175d@gmail.com> <ydda7elg924.fsf@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> <20190613104454.GB19695@tucnak> <13df24e6-8837-1a21-35f0-9a575e66096d@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <13df24e6-8837-1a21-35f0-9a575e66096d@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01)
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2019-06/txt/msg00774.txt.bz2

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 09:30:37AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> The size of the access above doesn't look right.  The test is:

It is correct.  You have MEM <int[5]> [(int *)&i], which is
the same thing as i itself, and on this you apply an ARRAY_REF,
which is printed after it, with index j_1(D).  ARRAY_REF is applied on
arrays and the result type is the array element type, so int in this case.

	Jakub