re PR middle-end/20739 (ICE in gimplify_addr_expr)

gcc/ChangeLog:
PR middle-end/20739
* gimplify.c (gimplify_addr_expr): Compensate for removal of
e.g. cv-qualification conversions.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR middle-end/20739
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr20739.c: New test.

From-SVN: r98167

gcc/ChangeLog

+2005-04-15  Alexandre Oliva  <aoliva@redhat.com>
+
+	PR middle-end/20739
+	* gimplify.c (gimplify_addr_expr): Compensate for removal of
+	e.g. cv-qualification conversions.
+
 2005-04-14  Mike Stump  <mrs@apple.com>
 
 	* config/darwin-c.c (framework_construct_pathname): We must

gcc/gimplify.c

@@ -3229,6 +3229,9 @@ gimplify_addr_expr (tree *expr_p, tree *pre_p, tree *post_p)
 	 builtins like __builtin_va_end).  */
       /* Caution: the silent array decomposition semantics we allow for
 	 ADDR_EXPR means we can't always discard the pair.  */
+      /* Gimplification of the ADDR_EXPR operand may drop
+	 cv-qualification conversions, so make sure we add them if
+	 needed.  */
       {
 	tree op00 = TREE_OPERAND (op0, 0);
 	tree t_expr = TREE_TYPE (expr);
@@ -3238,9 +3241,9 @@ gimplify_addr_expr (tree *expr_p, tree *pre_p, tree *post_p)
 	  {
 #ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING
 	    tree t_op0 = TREE_TYPE (op0);
-	    gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (t_op0) == ARRAY_TYPE
-			&& POINTER_TYPE_P (t_expr)
-			&& cpt_same_type (TREE_TYPE (t_op0),
+	    gcc_assert (POINTER_TYPE_P (t_expr)
+			&& cpt_same_type (TREE_CODE (t_op0) == ARRAY_TYPE
+					  ? TREE_TYPE (t_op0) : t_op0,
 					  TREE_TYPE (t_expr))
 			&& POINTER_TYPE_P (t_op00)
 			&& cpt_same_type (t_op0, TREE_TYPE (t_op00)));

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

+2005-04-15  Alexandre Oliva  <aoliva@redhat.com>
+
+	PR middle-end/20739
+	* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr20739.c: New test.
+
 2005-04-14  Mike Stump  <mrs@apple.com>
 
 	* gcc.dg/Foundation.framework/empty: New.

gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr20739.c

+/* PR middle-end/20739 */
+
+/* dg-do compile */
+/* dg-options "-O" */
+
+/* We used to fail to compile this because gimplification dropped the
+   conversion that added the const qualifier to the sub-expression
+   involving baz, and then immediately noticed and reported its
+   absence.  */
+
+typedef struct 
+{ 
+    char chars[5]; 
+} 
+baz_t; 
+ 
+extern baz_t * baz; 
+ 
+extern void foo (baz_t); 
+int 
+bar (const baz_t * ls) 
+{ 
+    foo (ls == 0 ? *(&baz[0]) : *ls); 
+}