On Sat, Nov 02, 2024 at 02:47:55PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> Fresh extract and bootstrap, and I dont see those spurious failures I
> mnetioned. And everything is good with the port of these patches too on
> GCC14. so whenever seems reasonable.
Let's commit the backport now then.
Ja
Fresh extract and bootstrap, and I dont see those spurious failures I
mnetioned. And everything is good with the port of these patches too on
GCC14. so whenever seems reasonable.
Andrew
On 11/1/24 17:10, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
It eas an existing branch. I will get a scrtach branch and do
ev
It eas an existing branch. I will get a scrtach branch and do
everything from scratch the beginning of the week.
IM always suspicious there is something laying around when its been
there a while :-) Who knows what I was doing with it 8 months ago :-)
Let me know if these feels more stable..
no, I mean those are on the branch as is... at least when I extracted
and built stage 1 release gcc14 branch. UNless there was something wrong
with my build which I havent verified.. it was just a first cut.
The converted patch does not contribute any extra failures.
Andrew
On 11/1/24 16:06,
On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 05:00:05PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> no, I mean those are on the branch as is... at least when I extracted and
> built stage 1 release gcc14 branch. UNless there was something wrong with my
> build which I havent verified.. it was just a first cut.
Strange. I certain
Maybe. The bitwise_and op1_range is very complicated.. I think its
heavily used, so I would be surprised if it didn't. bitwise or was
doing nothing at all and showed up immediately when I tried a few
things. I think i just happned to hit it "lucky". It didnt fail any
existing cases, just t
On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 04:00:17PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> Maybe. The bitwise_and op1_range is very complicated.. I think its heavily
> used, so I would be surprised if it didn't. bitwise or was doing nothing
> at all and showed up immediately when I tried a few things. I think i just
>
On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 03:25:37PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> When experimenting with more complex flow for the assume pass, I found a
> case where we were not as precise as we should be, but it was because
> range-ops hadn't been taught that if the LHS of a bitwise OR was positive,
> that the
When experimenting with more complex flow for the assume pass, I found a
case where we were not as precise as we should be, but it was because
range-ops hadn't been taught that if the LHS of a bitwise OR was
positive, that the 2 RHS operands must also be positive.
The testcase is simple a twea
