https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107986
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Tue, 6 Dec 2022, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107986 > > Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org > > --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > At least the only increment operation(s) on TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED typed var > result in a range from low bound of the initial value to +INF shouldn't be > that > hard I'd hope (Andrew, any suggestions where to do that)? Ditto only > decrement > operation(s) on such typed vars to [-INF, high bound of initial value]. > But I agree the result should be done somewhere too. I would guess that max_stmt_executions is still useful on these kind of loops but of course sth still has to do the (non-iterating then?) work to merge the ranges from the PHIs and somehow decide ignoring the backedge is OK.
