On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 10:50 AM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/21/20 9:59 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> >>> /* Even for valid range info, sometimes overflow flag will leak in.
> >>>As GIMPLE IL should have no constants with TREE_OVERFLOW set, we
> >>>drop them. */
> >>>
On 10/21/20 9:59 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
/* Even for valid range info, sometimes overflow flag will leak in.
As GIMPLE IL should have no constants with TREE_OVERFLOW set, we
drop them. */
if (TREE_OVERFLOW_P (*min))
*min = drop_tree_overflow (*min);
if (TREE
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 9:30 AM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/21/20 8:19 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 5:21 PM Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> bounds_of_var_in_loop is returning an overflowed int, which is causing
> >> us to create a range for whi
On 10/21/20 8:19 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 5:21 PM Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches
wrote:
bounds_of_var_in_loop is returning an overflowed int, which is causing
us to create a range for which we can't compare the bounds causing
an ICE in verify_range.
Overflowed boun
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 5:21 PM Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> bounds_of_var_in_loop is returning an overflowed int, which is causing
> us to create a range for which we can't compare the bounds causing
> an ICE in verify_range.
>
> Overflowed bounds cause compare_values() to return -2,
bounds_of_var_in_loop is returning an overflowed int, which is causing
us to create a range for which we can't compare the bounds causing
an ICE in verify_range.
Overflowed bounds cause compare_values() to return -2, which we
don't handle in verify_range.
We don't represent overflowed ranges in i
