[Bug tree-optimization/96397] GCC Fails to exploit ranges from overflow tests
amacleod at redhat dot com
Fri Jul 31 14:05:25 GMT 2020
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> ---
if I read this right, the basic premise is:
x = p1 - 4, so if x + 8 doesn't overflow, then p1 - 4 couldn't have
underflowed, and therefore x must be > p1
which is a little more complicated than just back propagation.
Firstly, we have to understand that builtin_add_overflow is actually x + 8 and
that the IMAG_PART is in fact the overflow flag. we currently understand that
the IMAG_PART is a boolean, but we dont "understand" the add yet. so we'll
eventually start treating those built-ins like tree-codes and provide the
secondly, the x = p1 - 4 + 8 calculation is handle-able by rangeops, we just
need slightly better range tracking of overflows on unsigned values.. which is
already on my todo list.
and then the if (x > p1) would be handled by the upcoming relational code
automatically once we get the calculation right.
so its not quite as simple as back propagation, but it is on the radar,
possibly during this stage 1.
More information about the Gcc-bugs