[PATCH] Fix assertion failure caused by InlineCost when ptrtoint int size is larger than the pointer size

[Matt Arsenault]

On 08/15/2013 11:33 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote:
>
> On Aug 15, 2013, at 11:24 , Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com 
> <mailto:chandlerc at google.com>> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Matt Arsenault <arsenm2 at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:arsenm2 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     On Aug 8, 2013, at 0:36 , Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:chandlerc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     >  I don't think this is the correct fix. Your original message
>>     indicates there something wrong with tracking a base and offset
>>     through an integer that happens to be wider than necessary for
>>     the pointer value?
>>     It's more that it's different and not that it's bigger.
>>     stripAndComputeInBoundsConstantOffsets returns a constant integer
>>     that is the pointer size, and is kept in the ConstantOffsetPtrs.
>>     In the test case, when the sub is visited, it uses those 32-bit
>>     constants for constant simplified value. This simplified value is
>>     then 32 bits which is inconsistent with its uses. When the
>>     simplified value is used when visiting the icmp, it isn't the
>>     same type as the i64 other operand.
>>
>>
>> So, somewhere in the original code, there is a 32-bit -> 64-bit 
>> extension (ptrtoint, or zext, or sext, or ?) that feeds into the 
>> icmp. At that point, we should extend the constant and should use the 
>> extended constant when visiting the icmp.
>>
>> Again, I can't give more detailed help w/o a test case.
> The test case is the one I added, the ptrtoint_larger one 
Ping
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20131009/6532b6fe/attachment.html>