constants in C++11 mode. I have no idea why it required such particular
circumstances to get here, the code seems clearly to rely upon unchecked
assumptions.
Specifically, when we decide to form an index into a struct type, we may
have gone through (at least one) zero-length array indexing round, which
would have left the offset un-adjusted, and thus not necessarily valid
for use when indexing the struct type.
This is just an canonicalization step, so the correct thing is to refuse
to canonicalize nonsensical GEPs of this form. Implemented, and test
case added.
Fixes PR12642. Pair debugged and coded with Richard Smith. =] I credit
him with most of the debugging, and preventing me from writing the wrong
code.
llvm-svn: 155466
they'll be simple enough to simulate, and to reduce the chance we'll encounter
equal but different simple pointer constants.
This removes the symptoms from PR11352 but is not a full fix. A proper fix would
either require a guarantee that two constant objects we simulate are folded
when equal, or a different way of handling equal pointers (ie., trying a
constantexpr icmp on them to see whether we know they're equal or non-equal or
unsure).
llvm-svn: 151093
ConstantExpr, not just the top-level operator. This allows it to
fold many more constants.
Also, make GlobalOpt call ConstantFoldConstantExpression on
GlobalVariable initializers.
llvm-svn: 89659
Chandler Carruth