On Wed, 22 Aug 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 02:34:01PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
Ok, I committed the __CHAR_BIT__ version (I just compiled that one
file manually with old and new compilers, I didn't restart the
testsuite, I hope the manual test is enough to detect any typo
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 02:34:01PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> >>>2012-08-21 Marc Glisse
> >>>+ n <<= (8 * sizeof (NT) - 1);
> >
> >Better use __CHAR_BIT__ instead of 8 here...
>
> Ok, I committed the __CHAR_BIT__ version (I just compiled that one
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
2012-08-21 Marc Glisse
+ n <<= (8 * sizeof (NT) - 1);
Better use __CHAR_BIT__ instead of 8 here...
Ok, I committed the __CHAR_BIT__ version (I just compiled that one file
manually with old and new compilers, I didn't restart the testsuite, I
ho
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 02:19:19PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > 2012-08-21 Marc Glisse
> >
> > PR tree-optimization/54317
> >
> > gcc/
> > * tree-vrp.c (extract_range_from_binary_expr_1): Test for
> > double_int overflow.
> > Remove dead tests.
> >
> > gcc/t
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> Hello,
>
> when I adapted VRP PLUS_EXPR handling for __int128, I missed one place where
> double_int can overflow. Note that I have no idea if that helps for bug
> 54317, but that's where I noticed the issue.
Ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
> 2012-08-2
