This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org 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] |
On Wed, 5 Jul 2017, Robin Dapp wrote:
While the initialization value doesn't matter (wi::add will overwrite it) better initialize both to false ;) Ah, you mean because we want to transform only if get_range_info returned VR_RANGE. Indeed somewhat unintuitive (but still the best variant for now).so I'm still missing a comment on why min_ovf && max_ovf is ok. The simple-minded would have written [...]I suppose it's more a matter of considering too many things at the same time for me... I was still thinking of including more cases than necessary for the regression. Guess the attached version will do as well and should not contain any more surprises. If needed, I'll add additional cases some time.
What happens for (long)(X+10)+LONG_MAX where X has type int and is in [-30, -20]? It looks like wi::add will overflow and you will generate X+negative which overflows at runtime.
(It looks like you don't need to name @3, you could just use the type of @0 instead)
-- Marc Glisse
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |