https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81297
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Hmpf. So the assert was to make sure we do not introduce OVF stuff in symbolic
ranges (it should better have been in set_value_range). But yes, generic
folding is susceptible to introduce it, esp. with -fwrapv :/
The easiest "fix" is to remove the assert. But OTOH the best fix would be to
stop setting TREE_OVERFLOW alltogether... or at least for where overflow
is (implementation) defined.
I will eventually look into this after I return from vacation.
