Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:23:22AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 10/14/14 10:02, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> >When hacking on range reassoc opt, I've noticed we can emit
>> >code with undefined behavior even when there wasn't one originally,
>> >in particular for:
>> >(X - 4
On 10/14/14 11:40, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:23:22AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/14/14 10:02, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
When hacking on range reassoc opt, I've noticed we can emit
code with undefined behavior even when there wasn't one originally,
in particular for:
(X - 4
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:23:22AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/14/14 10:02, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >When hacking on range reassoc opt, I've noticed we can emit
> >code with undefined behavior even when there wasn't one originally,
> >in particular for:
> >(X - 43U) <= 3U || (X - 75U) <= 3U
>
On 10/14/14 10:02, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
When hacking on range reassoc opt, I've noticed we can emit
code with undefined behavior even when there wasn't one originally,
in particular for:
(X - 43U) <= 3U || (X - 75U) <= 3U
and this loop can transform that into
((X - 43U) & ~(75U -
On October 14, 2014 6:02:19 PM CEST, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>Hi!
>
>When hacking on range reassoc opt, I've noticed we can emit
>code with undefined behavior even when there wasn't one originally,
>in particular for:
> (X - 43U) <= 3U || (X - 75U) <= 3U
> and this loop can transform that into
>
