https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104526
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> --- On 2/16/22 07:39, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104526 > > --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > + tree type = TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (cond, 0)); > + if (type != TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (cond, 1))) > + return false; > looks unnecessarily restrictive. > What tree-cfg.cc verification guarantees (and no need to check it in the > ranger) > is what verify_gimple_comparison verifies, i.e. that > /* For comparisons we do not have the operations type as the > effective type the comparison is carried out in. Instead > we require that either the first operand is trivially > convertible into the second, or the other way around. */ > if (!useless_type_conversion_p (op0_type, op1_type) > && !useless_type_conversion_p (op1_type, op0_type)) > I think the ranger has to be prepared for non-pointer-equal type mismatches as > long as they are useless_type_conversion_p compatible, that can happen > anywhere > in the IL, including even cases like different but useless_type_conversion_p > compatible types of binary operators like +, -, * etc. > So I'd just remove the > if (type != TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (cond, 1))) > return false; > lines. The rest of ranger isn't this restrictive.. it is satisfied by range_compatable_p() which boils down to "same precision, same sign". I added it here so to be super paranoid so I didn't get caught by something unexpected later in the routine and cause an ICE in intersect in the middle of building the kernel or something. In hindsight, I should have used range_compatible_p... Are you OK with the following change? I'll bootstrap and regression test... Andrew
