[Bug sanitizer/108845] Unnecessary signed integer overflow checks

2023-02-18 Thread qrzhang at gatech dot edu via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108845 --- Comment #4 from Qirun Zhang --- (In reply to Qirun Zhang from comment #3) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > > I'm not convinced it is a good idea. > > Sure, in the above case it is obvious it will never trigger, but if we say >

[Bug sanitizer/108845] Unnecessary signed integer overflow checks

2023-02-18 Thread qrzhang at gatech dot edu via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108845 --- Comment #3 from Qirun Zhang --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > I'm not convinced it is a good idea. > Sure, in the above case it is obvious it will never trigger, but if we say > use ranger to decide if the operation can or ca

[Bug sanitizer/108845] Unnecessary signed integer overflow checks

2023-02-18 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108845 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- I'm not convinced it is a good idea. Sure, in the above case it is obvious it will never trigger, but if we say use ranger to decide if the operation can or can't overflow, then VRP is in many cases based on

[Bug sanitizer/108845] Unnecessary signed integer overflow checks

2023-02-18 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108845 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization --- Comment #1 from