This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Bug fix in LSHIFT_EXPR case with a shift range in tree-vrp, handle more cases
- From: Tom de Vries <Tom_deVries at mentor dot com>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 09:51:48 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Bug fix in LSHIFT_EXPR case with a shift range in tree-vrp, handle more cases
- References: <5052DC5F.4060204@mentor.com> <20120914073804.GM22619@tucnak.redhat.com>
On 14/09/12 09:38, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 09:27:27AM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp81.c: New test.
>> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp81-2.c: Same.
>> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp82.c: Same.
>
> Why not vrp82.c, vrp83.c and vrp84.c (and rename the recently added
> vrp80-2.c test to vrp81.c)?
>
My thinking behind this was the following: vrp80.c and vrp80-2.c are 2 versions
of more or less the same code. In one version, we test whether the inclusive
bounds of the range are folded. In the other version we test whether the
exclusive bounds of the range are not folded.
Given that rationale, should I leave the names like this or rename them?
Thanks,
- Tom
> Jakub
>