On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 6:23 AM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> How does this look? > > It's a change that on its own doesn't look worthwhile to me. > > So please post the changes that will build ontop of this. Like removing > anti-ranges from VRP or your on-demand value-range stuff. > > Thanks, > Richard. >From the looks of it, we can have a variety of VRP ranges that are not representable at all with the an integer range class. For instance, I see the following ranges built in set_value_range(): [INT, (nop_expr SSA)] [INT, (plus_expr SSA INT)] [(negate_expr SSA), (negate_expr SSA)] [(plus_expr (negate_expr SSA INT)), (plus_expr (negate_expr SSA) INT)] [SSA, SSA] So...I guess the first suggestion is out of the question ;-). Aldy
