This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug tree-optimization/23604] [4.1 Regression] wrong code due to VRP
- From: "dnovillo at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 30 Sep 2005 13:27:35 -0000
- Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/23604] [4.1 Regression] wrong code due to VRP
- References: <20050828194312.23604.pinskia@gcc.gnu.org>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-09-30 13:27 -------
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] wrong code due to VRP
On September 30, 2005 09:24, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> 2005-09-30 13:24 ------- Jim's patch certainly worked for me. But
> the question is if we can do more. If not anti-range and
> limit_vr->min == limit_vr->max, then we at least can create
> anti-range from TYPE_MIN_VALUE to TYPE_MAX_VALUE.
Right. That's what I'm trying to determine ATM.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23604