On 03/22/2016 11:40 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
In PR68142 you added a check for overflow + __INT_MIN__.
I can't figure out why the check for __INT_MIN__, except
that it seems specific to the test case you examined.
And indeed, this test case shows how things go wrong
with other distributed fol
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 09:59:56AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Note that always when I find bugs in extract_muldiv and try
>> to decipher what it does I think we need to rip that out,
>> replacing it with some simple patterns and leaving
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 09:59:56AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> Note that always when I find bugs in extract_muldiv and try
> to decipher what it does I think we need to rip that out,
> replacing it with some simple patterns and leaving the rest
> to passes like reassoc. It's simply a beast that
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> In PR68142 you added a check for overflow + __INT_MIN__.
> I can't figure out why the check for __INT_MIN__, except
> that it seems specific to the test case you examined.
>
> And indeed, this test case shows how things go wrong
> with ot
