https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83435
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- I have a patch robustifying VRP. Yes, we don't want to leak overflow constants into the IL but we're not there yet and I'd rather have this done in a robust way but couldn't yet thing of one (like not creating them in the first place when in GIMPLE form?! But we have to audit our codebase on where TREE_OVERFLOW is expected to be set - IIRC that's mostly FEs, but only "mostly"...).
