--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-22 09:29 ---
Subject: Re: ICE in set_value_range, at
tree-vrp.c:398
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-22 09:00 ---
> In PRE there is a fold_convert_cons
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2009-01-22 09:17 ---
Subject: Re: ICE in set_value_range, at tree-vrp.c:398
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 22, 2009, at 1:00 AM, "bonzini at gnu dot org" wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #4 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-22 09:00
>
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 22, 2009, at 1:00 AM, "bonzini at gnu dot org" > wrote:
--- Comment #4 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-22 09:00
---
In PRE there is a fold_convert_const_int_from_int call simplifying
"(signed
char) 249" to -7, but setting the TREE_OVERFLOW flag
--- Comment #4 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-22 09:00 ---
In PRE there is a fold_convert_const_int_from_int call simplifying "(signed
char) 249" to -7, but setting the TREE_OVERFLOW flag in the meanwhile. I
don't think it makes sense to set the overflow flag on a NOP:
* `The
--- Comment #3 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-22 08:23 ---
ah no there's no overflow bit on min
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38932
--- Comment #2 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-22 08:17 ---
Actually, there is no overflow in -9223372036854775807LL - 1 so this is a third
bug. :-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38932
--- Comment #1 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-22 08:09 ---
Can anyone check if this is a regression, and if so from which version?
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|000
