[PATCH] Fix optimization regression in constant folder
Ian Lance Taylor
iant@google.com
Mon Oct 1 00:10:00 GMT 2007
Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com> writes:
> > That doesn't make sense: a type either wraps on overflow or is
> > undefined on overflow.
>
> Well, I've given the rationale and I stand by it. We already have the
> property that, if flag_strict_overflow is not set, signed types are neither
> TYPE_OVERFLOW_WRAPS nor TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED.
Right. A type can be neither. But you were asking for sizetypes to
be both, and that does not make sense.
> > Richard's patch for PR 30364 should test TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED, not
> > TYPE_OVERFLOW_WRAPS.
>
> Makes sense, but that won't change anything as far as Ada is concerned.
Then I don't understand what change you want to make.
I want to move toward eliminating TYPE_IS_SIZETYPE checks from the
middle-end, and capture them entirely in TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED: a
sizetype is an unsigned type with undefined overflow.
What prevents us from doing that?
Ian
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list