On Fri, 1 Sep 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
The value of .CLZ (0) is undefined then. I belive your analysis is correct in
that both 63 - _35 might overflow and that dom3 (thus ranger) mis-computes
the range for _35. I wonder why we don't elide _36 ? _31 : 1 with that info
(possibly no range-op f
On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 10:13:40AM +0200, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
> The value of .CLZ (0) is undefined then. I belive your analysis is correct in
> that both 63 - _35 might overflow and that dom3 (thus ranger) mis-computes
> the range for _35. I wonder why we don't elide _36 ? _31 : 1 with
On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 3:58 PM Krister Walfridsson via Gcc
wrote:
>
> My translation validation tool reports some miscompilations related to the
> internal call CLZ(0) when CLZ_DEFINED_VALUE_AT_ZERO is false, but I am not
> sure I use the correct semantics...
>
> I started by modeling CLZ(0) as u
