On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> Hello,
>
> here is a rewrite of the patch, using wide_int, and improving a bit the
> result. Same ChangeLog, tested again on x86_64-linux-gnu.
Please use /* */ for comments.
Otherwise ok!
Thanks,
Richard.
> --
> Marc Glisse
> Index: gcc/test
Hello,
here is a rewrite of the patch, using wide_int, and improving a bit the
result. Same ChangeLog, tested again on x86_64-linux-gnu.
--
Marc GlisseIndex: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp97.c
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, 4 May 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> this patch tries to tighten a bit the range estimate for x%y.
>>> slp-perm-7.c
>>> started failing by vectorizing more tha
On Mon, 4 May 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
this patch tries to tighten a bit the range estimate for x%y. slp-perm-7.c
started failing by vectorizing more than expected, I assumed it was a good
thing and updated the test. I am less cons
On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> Hello,
>
> this patch tries to tighten a bit the range estimate for x%y. slp-perm-7.c
> started failing by vectorizing more than expected, I assumed it was a good
> thing and updated the test. I am less conservative than Jakub with division
> b
Hello,
this patch tries to tighten a bit the range estimate for x%y. slp-perm-7.c
started failing by vectorizing more than expected, I assumed it was a good
thing and updated the test. I am less conservative than Jakub with
division by 0, but I still don't really understand how empty ranges ar
