On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:20 PM Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On 8/23/18 8:51 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 7:35 PM Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 08/21/2018 05:46 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > >>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 3:33 AM Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote: > > >>> Yeah, nice work. Few comments: > >>> > >>> + TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (expr_type), > >>> + TYPE_OVERFLOW_WRAPS (expr_type), > >>> > >>> we no longer have the third state !UNDEFINED && !WRAPS so I suggest > >>> to eliminate one for the other (just pass TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED). > >> > >> I'm confused. Then what shall I pass to > >> wide_int_range_multiplicative_op within wide_int_range_div? Are you > >> expecting to pass overflow_undefined to both the overflow_undefined and > >> overflow_wraps arguments in multiplicative_op? Or are you saying I > >> should get rid of overflow_wraps in both wide_int_range_div and > >> wide_int_range_multiplicative_op (plus all other users of > >> w_i_r_multiplicative_op)? > > > > Yes, overflow_wraps == !overflow_undefined (well, OK, not exactly - there's > > also TYPE_OVERFLOW_TRAPS, but not for pointers). > > > > Let's sort this out as a followup. It somewhat felt odd / inconsistent. > > > > I think the wide-int routines want to know whether the operation may > > overflow or not and if it may then it simply assumes wrapping behavior. > > When overflow is undefined or if it traps the overflow isn't observed > > in the result ... > > As promised, here is a patch merging the TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED and > TYPE_OVERFLOW_WRAPS flags in the wide_int_range* routines. > > OK pending tests?
OK. Richard. > Aldy
