https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77898
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77898
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #8)
> I agree that in many cases there isn't enough information to tell that a
> range is final and can't be further improved. But there certainly are such
> cases (the t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77898
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
No, I get the range for _2 with a "def_stmt _2 = (sizetype) i_4;"
i.0_1: [0, +INF]
_2: ~[2147483648, 18446744071562067967]
_3: [0, +INF]
i_4: VARYING
i_6(D): VARYING
...
# i_4 = PHI
_2 = (sizetype) i_4;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77898
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #6)
> I meant a subrange of the i variable (i.e., a subrange of int). The range
> of every variable is necessarily bounded by its type so returning a range of
> [INT_MIN,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77898
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
I meant a subrange of the i variable (i.e., a subrange of int). The range of
every variable is necessarily bounded by its type so returning a range of
[INT_MIN, INT_MAX] for an int isn't terribly helpful. It
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77898
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> I suppose I was expecting that that after EVRP (and before VRP1)
> get_range_info() would either succeed and return a range representing a
> subrange of the the vari
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77898
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
I suppose I was expecting that that after EVRP (and before VRP1)
get_range_info() would either succeed and return a range representing a
subrange of the the variable's type or fail and return VR_VARYING.
If t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77898
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #2)
> I may also be confused about other things but below is what I see in GDB
> when I call get_range_info() from plus_stmt_object_size() on the offset in
> POINTER_PLUS_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77898
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
