obtained gcc-4.6.4.tar.bz2 from upstream website;upstream

verified gcc-4.6.4.tar.bz2.sig;
imported gcc-4.6.4 source tree from verified upstream tarball.

downloading a git-generated archive based on the 'upstream' tag
should provide you with a source tree that is binary identical
to the one extracted from the above tarball.

if you have obtained the source via the command 'git clone',
however, do note that line-endings of files in your working
directory might differ from line-endings of the respective
files in the upstream repository.

1 files changed, 137 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-ccp-3.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-ccp-3.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..86a706b80
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-ccp-3.c
@@ -0,0 +1,137 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O -fdump-tree-ccp2" } */
+
+extern void link_error (void);
+
+/* Some addresses clearly cannot be equal, check that some address
+   expressions can be evaluated as constants.
+   Most of the tests are folding tests, but at least some require
+   points-to analysis, so we scan the first CCP dump after PTA.  */
+
+char g1, g2;
+void test6 (char p1, char p2)
+{
+  char l1 = 1, l2 = 2;
+  static char s1 = 5, s2 = 7;
+  if (&l1 == &l2)
+    link_error ();
+
+  if (&p1 == &p2)
+    link_error ();
+
+  if (&s1 == &s2)
+    link_error ();
+
+  if (&g1 == &g2)
+    link_error ();
+  
+  if (&p1 == &l1)
+    link_error (); 
+
+  if (&p1 == &s1)
+    link_error (); 
+
+  if (&p1 == &l2)
+    link_error (); 
+
+  if (&p1 == &g1)
+    link_error (); 
+
+  if (&l1 == &g1)
+    link_error (); 
+
+  if (&s1 == &g1)
+    link_error (); 
+}
+
+extern void *alloc (int) __attribute__ ((malloc));
+char gca1[128];
+char* __restrict__ rgc1;
+char* test66 (char * __restrict__ rp1, char * __restrict__ rp2, char *p1)
+{
+  char * __restrict__ rl1 = p1;
+  char * l1 = (char*) alloc (20);
+
+  if (l1 == rgc1)
+    link_error ();
+
+  if (l1 == rp1)
+    link_error ();
+
+  if (l1 == rl1)
+    link_error ();
+
+  if (l1 == gca1)
+    link_error ();
+
+  if (rl1 == rgc1)
+    link_error ();
+
+  if (rl1 == rp1)
+    link_error ();
+
+  if (rl1 == gca1)
+    link_error ();
+  
+  if (rp1 == rp2)
+    link_error ();
+
+  if (rp1 == rgc1)
+    link_error ();
+  
+  if (rp1 == gca1)
+    link_error ();
+
+  if (gca1 == rgc1)
+    link_error ();
+
+}
+
+int gci1[128];
+int* __restrict__ rgi1;
+int* test666 (int * __restrict__ rp1, int * __restrict__ rp2, int *p1)
+{
+  int * __restrict__ rl1 = p1;
+  int * l1 = (int*) alloc (20);
+
+  if (l1 == rgi1)
+    link_error ();
+
+  if (l1 == rp1)
+    link_error ();
+
+  if (l1 == rl1)
+    link_error ();
+
+  if (l1 == gci1)
+    link_error ();
+
+  if (rl1 == rgi1)
+    link_error ();
+
+  if (rl1 == rp1)
+    link_error ();
+
+  if (rl1 == gci1)
+    link_error ();
+  
+  if (rp1 == rp2)
+    link_error ();
+
+  if (rp1 == rgi1)
+    link_error ();
+  
+  if (rp1 == gci1)
+    link_error ();
+
+  if (gci1 == rgi1)
+    link_error ();
+}
+
+
+/* There should be not link_error calls, if there is any the
+   optimization has failed */
+/* ??? While we indeed don't handle some of these, a couple of the
+   restrict tests are incorrect.  */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "link_error" 0 "ccp2" { xfail *-*-* } } } */
+/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "ccp2" } } */