On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 4:38 PM Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>
> On 7/29/21 3:19 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 4:39 PM Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> >>
> >> Which has removed the second call to builtin_abort()(Even before we
> >> get to EVRP!)
> >>
> >> SO the issue doesn't seem to
On 7/29/21 3:19 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 4:39 PM Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Which has removed the second call to builtin_abort()(Even before we
get to EVRP!)
SO the issue doesn't seem to be removing the divide by 0, it seems to be
a pattern match for [0,1] that is trig
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 4:39 PM Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>
> So Im seeing what appears to me to be inconsistent behaviour.
>
> in pr96094.c we see:
>
> int
> foo (int x)
> {
>if (x >= 2U)
> return 34;
>return 34 / x;
> }
>
> x has a range of [0,1] and since / 0 in undefined, the expecta
On 7/28/21 4:39 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
So Im seeing what appears to me to be inconsistent behaviour.
in pr96094.c we see:
int
foo (int x)
{
if (x >= 2U)
return 34;
return 34 / x;
}
x has a range of [0,1] and since / 0 in undefined, the expectation is
that we fold this to "re
