https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85158
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85158 > > --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > As a middle-ground between ints, HOST_WIDE_INTs and unlimited precision we > have > offset_int, widest_int etc. But perhaps using even that would be too costly. Not sure - we seem to get away with gmp in niter analysis just "fine". What the current code misses if we don't go all the way to unlimited precision is a failure mode on overflow given overflow almost certainly results in wrong-code with enough bad luck. Anyway, IIRC we went to HWIs already to handle "most" cases, and yes, the lambda_vector case is still "unfixed" at ints. But what's still missing is the failure mode... (I fear that a hard assert will trigger way too often...)
