Re: [PATCH] Use precision and sign to compare types for ranges - update

2020-10-22 Thread Eric Botcazou
> Sorry for missing the regression.. it was there, it just snuck by me in > the noise :-P > > THis seems to resolve the issue on my end, and its the right thing. > > Bootstrapped on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, no regressions, for SURE this time, > pushed. No problem, thanks for the quick turnaround! -

[PATCH] Use precision and sign to compare types for ranges - update

2020-10-22 Thread Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches
On 10/22/20 3:16 PM, Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches wrote: On 10/22/20 12:53 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote: There are a few places in the ranger where we sanity check the types of the ranges.  We were using types_compatible_p() but thats not really acccurate as gimple allows types which are useless_ty

Re: [patch] Use precision and sign to compare types for ranges

2020-10-22 Thread Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches
On 10/22/20 12:53 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote: There are a few places in the ranger where we sanity check the types of the ranges. We were using types_compatible_p() but thats not really acccurate as gimple allows types which are useless_type_conversion_p() in only one direction, whereas types_compa

Re: [patch] Use precision and sign to compare types for ranges

2020-10-22 Thread Eric Botcazou
> There are a few places in the ranger where we sanity check the types of > the ranges. We were using types_compatible_p() but thats not really > acccurate as gimple allows types which are useless_type_conversion_p() > in only one direction, whereas types_compatible_p() requires casts in > both di

Re: [patch] Use precision and sign to compare types for ranges

2020-10-22 Thread Eric Botcazou
> Just as a heads up ... > > This regresses ACATs C35507N on at least all X86 Darwin I’ve tried. > Both 32 and 64Bit hosts fail (not had the chance to test on power darwin > yet, because that’s got bootstrap issues). I have attached a reproducer, compile it with gnatmake p -O2 and gnatmak

Re: [patch] Use precision and sign to compare types for ranges

2020-10-22 Thread Iain Sandoe
Hi Andrew, Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches wrote: This fixes the second test case in pr 97360. There are a few places in the ranger where we sanity check the types of the ranges. We were using types_compatible_p() but thats not really acccurate as gimple allows types which are useless_typ

[patch] Use precision and sign to compare types for ranges

2020-10-19 Thread Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches
This fixes the second test case in pr 97360. There are a few places in the ranger where we sanity check the types of the ranges.  We were using types_compatible_p() but thats not really acccurate as gimple allows types which are useless_type_conversion_p() in only one direction, whereas types_