https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100081
--- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> Or
>
> bool
> irange::symbolic_p () const
> {
> return (!varying_p ()
> && !undefined_p ()
> && (!is_gimple_min_invariant (min ())
> || !is_gimple_min_invariant (max ())));
> }
>
> which should be simply
>
> bool
> irange::symbolic_p () const
> {
> return (m_num_ranges == 1
> && (!is_gimple_min_invariant (min ())
> || !is_gimple_min_invariant (max ())));
> }
>
> ? Or do we have symbolic anti ranges represented with two ranges?
>
> Likewise
>
> bool
> irange::constant_p () const
> {
> return (!varying_p ()
> && !undefined_p ()
> && TREE_CODE (min ()) == INTEGER_CST
> && TREE_CODE (max ()) == INTEGER_CST);
> }
>
> err - I thought varying == constant...
Those varying_p checks definitely look suspect. You should be able to just
look at the min/max as you suggest. However, the undefined_p check must stay
because it is really a check for num_ranges > 0, otherwise in the case of
undefined_p, the is_gimple_*_invariant would dereference m_base[] which has
nothing of interest.
Perhaps a more obvious check would be m_num_ranges > 0, instead of the
confusing undefined_p.
