Re: Constraints and branching in -fanalyzer

2021-02-26 Thread brian.sobulefsky via Gcc
I'll send it. It is not too slow. I just figured I would try to fix the others but I get that it is easier for you to see changes in steps. Brian Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Friday, February 26, 2021 8:36 AM, David Malcolm wrote: > On Fri, 2021-02-2

Re: Constraints and branching in -fanalyzer

2021-02-26 Thread David Malcolm via Gcc
On Fri, 2021-02-26 at 04:23 +, brian.sobulefsky wrote: > Hi, > > I have implemented the discussed change, bootstrapped, and run the > testsuite. I > would be submitting except to my disappointment I saw failures > increase by 4. As > it turns out, these "failures" are actually passes that had

Re: Constraints and branching in -fanalyzer

2021-02-25 Thread brian.sobulefsky via Gcc
Hi, I have implemented the discussed change, bootstrapped, and run the testsuite. I would be submitting except to my disappointment I saw failures increase by 4. As it turns out, these "failures" are actually passes that had been marked "xfail" and "TRUE" "desired" in the testsuite. The items in q

Re: Constraints and branching in -fanalyzer

2021-02-23 Thread brian.sobulefsky via Gcc
I can post it to the patches list with an explanation that it is not a full solution to the PR. I actually put the logic directly into constraint_manager::eval_condition when I was experimenting but I think I will make a new subroutine for you for "folding" constraints. It is not overly complica

Re: Constraints and branching in -fanalyzer

2021-02-22 Thread David Malcolm via Gcc
On Sun, 2021-02-21 at 05:27 +, brian.sobulefsky wrote: > To be clear, I only solved the lesser problem > > if(idx-- > 0) >   __analyzer_eval(idx >= 0); > > which is a stepping stone problem. I correctly surmised that this was > failing > (with the prefix operator and -= operator working as ex

Re: Constraints and branching in -fanalyzer

2021-02-20 Thread brian.sobulefsky via Gcc
To be clear, I only solved the lesser problem if(idx-- > 0) __analyzer_eval(idx >= 0); which is a stepping stone problem. I correctly surmised that this was failing (with the prefix operator and -= operator working as expected) because the condition that is constrainted in the postfix problem i

Constraints and branching in -fanalyzer

2021-02-20 Thread David Malcolm via Gcc
[Moving this discussion from offlist to the GCC mailing list (with permission) and tweaking the subject] On Sat, 2021-02-20 at 02:57 +, brian.sobulefsky wrote: > Yeah, its a lot to take in. For the last one, it was just about > storing and retrieving data and I ignored everything else about th