Re: [PATCH 2/5] completely_scalarize arrays as well as records

[Alan Lawrence <alan.lawrence@arm.com>]

Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> 
>> Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>> I asked because I assumed that Alan saw it pass in his configuration.
>>
>> Bah. No - I now discover a problem in my C++ testsuite setup that was causing
>> a large number of tests to not be executed. I see the problem too now,
>> investigating....
> 
> Btw, your patch broke Ada:
> 
> +===========================GNAT BUG 
> DETECTED==============================+
> | 6.0.0 20150828 (experimental) (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) GCC error:           
> |
> | in completely_scalarize, at tree-sra.c:996                               
> |
> | Error detected around ../rts/a-coorse.ads:46:24                          
> |
> 
>     case ARRAY_TYPE:
>       {
>         tree elemtype = TREE_TYPE (decl_type);
>         tree elem_size = TYPE_SIZE (elemtype);
>         gcc_assert (elem_size && tree_fits_uhwi_p (elem_size));
>         int el_size = tree_to_uhwi (elem_size);
>         gcc_assert (el_size);
> 
>         tree minidx = TYPE_MIN_VALUE (TYPE_DOMAIN (decl_type));
>         tree maxidx = TYPE_MAX_VALUE (TYPE_DOMAIN (decl_type));
>         gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (minidx) == INTEGER_CST
>                     && TREE_CODE (maxidx) == INTEGER_CST);
> 
> obviously you missed VLAs.  min/max value can also be NULL.
> 
> Richard.
> 

Right. I think VLA's are the problem with pr64312.C also. I'm testing a fix 
(that declares arrays with any of these properties as unscalarizable).

Monday is a bank holiday in UK and so I expect to get back to you on Tuesday.

--Alan