This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Fix extract_range_from_cond (PR tree-optimization/19060)

On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 11:49:45AM -0700, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> > value of the second extract_range_from_cond.  I haven't so far managed to
> > write a testcase that would prove that it is wrong, but I certainly don't
> > understand how that can be right.
> It works right now because we never record any ranges which need to be
> inverted.  Thus we "know" that the inverted flag will never be set by
> the second call to extract_range_cond (for the same reason we can ignore
> the return value from the second call to extract_range_cond).  It
> wouldn't hurt to put in a couple asserts.


> Your change as it stands means we could need the inverted bit on
> stored ranges and thus I believe could introduce regressions.
> We're probably best off doing two things:
>   1. Fixing fold so that it handles x < TYPE_MIN_VALUE (TREE_TYPE (x))
>      (I thought it did that already, so we need to figure out why it
>       didn't trigger).
>   2. For GT TYPE_MAX_VALUE, don't record anything.  Simliarly for

Ok, I'll handle 1. and 2. (plus add assert about dummy == 0).


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]