[Bug tree-optimization/109637] unnecessary range check in complete switch on bitfield

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109637

--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #3)
> we know the range of _2 is [0, 3].. wonder why we don't know that about
> _1...  having a look

I assume the range of _1 is [-INF, +INF] (aka [0, 3] aka varrying) really as _1
has a type of unnamed-unsigned:2 so it would cover the whole range of the type.