------- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-27 10:29 -------
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression] ICE in set_value_range,
at tree-vrp.c:398
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> ------- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 10:25 -------
> So, what should we do for 4.4 then?
> --- tree-vrp.c.jj 2009-01-02 09:32:55.000000000 +0100
> +++ tree-vrp.c 2009-01-27 11:16:57.000000000 +0100
> @@ -1620,7 +1620,8 @@ extract_range_from_assert (value_range_t
> all should be optimized away above us. */
> if ((cond_code == LT_EXPR
> && compare_values (max, min) == 0)
> - || is_overflow_infinity (max))
> + || is_overflow_infinity (max)
> + || TREE_OVERFLOW (max))
> set_value_range_to_varying (vr_p);
> else
> {
> @@ -1655,7 +1656,8 @@ extract_range_from_assert (value_range_t
> all should be optimized away above us. */
> if ((cond_code == GT_EXPR
> && compare_values (min, max) == 0)
> - || is_overflow_infinity (min))
> + || is_overflow_infinity (min)
> + || TREE_OVERFLOW (min))
> set_value_range_to_varying (vr_p);
> else
> {
That looks reasonable to me.
Richard.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38934
