http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
--- Comment #23 from Marc Glisse 2012-08-03
12:35:40 UTC ---
I think that's it for me. Should we close the bug, or is there still something
missing?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
--- Comment #22 from Marc Glisse 2012-08-03
12:21:25 UTC ---
Author: glisse
Date: Fri Aug 3 12:21:14 2012
New Revision: 190125
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190125
Log:
gcc/
2012-08-03 Marc Glisse
PR tree-optimizat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27317|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
--- Comment #20 from Marc Glisse 2012-07-25
18:26:18 UTC ---
Author: glisse
Date: Wed Jul 25 18:26:12 2012
New Revision: 189861
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189861
Log:
2012-07-25 Marc Glisse
PR tree-optimization/3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
--- Comment #19 from Marc Glisse 2012-06-20
19:12:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> I have now pushed all my refactorings into VRP,
Thanks.
> Can you adjust your patch with the double-double_int arithmetic stuff
> to that fact?
I'll look
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
--- Comment #18 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-20
12:05:35 UTC ---
Marc - I have now pushed all my refactorings into VRP, including the
PLUS_EXPR handling. The basic idea was to build on simple building blocks,
a "complete" union/intersect implem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
--- Comment #17 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-20
12:00:27 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 20 12:00:20 2012
New Revision: 188827
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188827
Log:
2012-06-20 Richard Guenther
PR tree-o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
--- Comment #16 from Marc Glisse 2012-05-07
14:46:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Looking at your second patch it looks entirely reasonable, though not
> globbing MULT_EXPR together with PLUS/MINUS might be better for readability
I wonder
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
--- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-07
13:50:17 UTC ---
Looking at your second patch it looks entirely reasonable, though not
globbing MULT_EXPR together with PLUS/MINUS might be better for readability
(thus, in the end I'd like extract
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|paolo.carlini at oracle dot |
|com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-05-07 08:51:06 UTC ---
On Fri, 4 May 2012, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
>
> --- Comment #8 from glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-04 21:4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
--- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse 2012-05-05
13:43:04 UTC ---
Er, sorry, don't know what key I accidentally pressed but it apparently sent
incomplete messages :-(
(In reply to comment #10)
> Now for the testcases... ;)
Yes, that was also my reac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27311|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
--- Comment #8 from glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-04 21:45:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 27311
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27311
Wrap plus/minus
This patch handles combinations of range/anti_range for PLUS_EXPR and
MINU
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse 2012-05-02
14:33:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, marc.glisse at normalesup dot org wrote:
> > I find it easier to use bignum and wrap at the end, instead of checking for
> > each operatio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-05-02 08:21:57 UTC ---
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, marc.glisse at normalesup dot org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
>
> --- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse
> 2012-04-28 13:18:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse 2012-04-28
13:18:25 UTC ---
Created attachment 27260
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27260
Wrap using gmp
I find it easier to use bignum and wrap at the end, instead of checking for
each operat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
--- Comment #4 from DMueller at suse dot com 2011-12-22 03:25:02 UTC ---
Hi,
I'm currently out of office until December 28th and your email will be handled
when I'm back.
For urgent SUSE Maintenance related issues that can not wait until then,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-28 20:32 ---
Doesn't seem to work. gcc.c-torture/execute/vrp-5.c fails because
[5, +INF] + [5, +INF] is combined to [10, +INF-1] (and 5 + +INF-5 is zero
anyways).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-28 19:35 ---
Created an attachment (id=12845)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12845&action=view)
preliminary patch
needs proper testing / splitting.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
24 matches
Mail list logo
