Hi! Like in the case a few lines below, if new_val is a minimum resp. a few lines below maximum value, we end up with always true resp. always false assertion, which VRP asserts that those aren't created. So, we should punt on those, and instead fold-const or gimple_fold should ideally optimize those cases to false resp. true.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk/4.8 branch? 2013-04-18 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> PR tree-optimization/56984 * tree-vrp.c (register_edge_assert_for_2): For (x >> M) < N and (x >> M) >= N don't register any assertion if N << M is the minimum value. * gcc.c-torture/compile/pr56984.c: New test. --- gcc/tree-vrp.c.jj 2013-04-11 09:09:33.000000000 +0200 +++ gcc/tree-vrp.c 2013-04-17 09:17:34.278242462 +0200 @@ -4895,7 +4895,13 @@ register_edge_assert_for_2 (tree name, e new_comp_code = comp_code == EQ_EXPR ? LE_EXPR : GT_EXPR; } else if (comp_code == LT_EXPR || comp_code == GE_EXPR) - new_val = val2; + { + double_int minval + = double_int::min_value (prec, TYPE_UNSIGNED (TREE_TYPE (val))); + new_val = val2; + if (minval == tree_to_double_int (new_val)) + new_val = NULL_TREE; + } else { double_int maxval --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr56984.c.jj 2013-04-17 09:24:44.689719328 +0200 +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr56984.c 2013-04-17 09:24:25.000000000 +0200 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +/* PR tree-optimization/56984 */ + +int +foo (int x) +{ + if ((x >> 31) < -1) + x++; + return x; +} Jakub