On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/02/2013 01:55 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> range_fits_type_p erroneously returns true in cases where the range has
>>> overflowed. So for example, we might have a range [0, +I
On 05/02/2013 01:55 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
range_fits_type_p erroneously returns true in cases where the range has
overflowed. So for example, we might have a range [0, +INF(OVF)] and
conclude the range fits in an unsigned type.
This in tur
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> range_fits_type_p erroneously returns true in cases where the range has
> overflowed. So for example, we might have a range [0, +INF(OVF)] and
> conclude the range fits in an unsigned type.
>
> This in turn can cause VRP to rewrite a conditiona
range_fits_type_p erroneously returns true in cases where the range has
overflowed. So for example, we might have a range [0, +INF(OVF)] and
conclude the range fits in an unsigned type.
This in turn can cause VRP to rewrite a conditional in an unsafe way as
seen by the testcase.
Bootstrap
