On 12/1/21 15:19, Richard Biener wrote:
which is compute the range of 'lhs' on edge_true into predicate->true_range,
assign that same range to ->false_range and then invert it to get the
range on the false_edge.  What I am saying is that for better precision
you should do

      ranger->range_on_edge (predicate->false_range, edge_false, lhs);

rather than prematurely optimize this to the inversion of the true range
since yes, ranger is CFG sensitive and only the_last_  predicate on a
long CFG path is actually inverted.

What am I missing?

I might be misunderstood, but I think it's the problem defined here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-November/584605.html

where I used the ranger->range_on_edge on the false_edge.

Martin

Reply via email to