Hi, On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Richard Biener wrote:
> > This fixes PR55011, it seems nothing checks for invalid lattice > transitions in VRP, That makes sense, because the individual parts of VRP that produce new ranges are supposed to not generate invalid transitions. So if anything such checking should be an assert and the causes be fixed. > so the following adds that It's a work around ... > since we now can produce a lot more UNDEFINED than before ... for this. We should never "produce" UNDEFINED when the input wasn't UNDEFINED already. > not doing so triggers issues. Hmm? Ciao, Michael.
