As discussed in the PR. The code makes no difference, so whatever test
we added this special case for has been fixed or is being papered over.
I think we should fix any fall out upstream.
[Unless Andrew can remember why we added this and it still applies.]
Tested on x86-64 Linux.
OK for trunk?
PR 103451
gcc/ChangeLog:
* range-op.cc (operator_div::wi_fold): Remove
can_throw_non_call_exceptions special case.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.dg/pr103451.c: New test.
---
gcc/range-op.cc | 7 -------
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr103451.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr103451.c
diff --git a/gcc/range-op.cc b/gcc/range-op.cc
index bbf2924f815..6fe5f1cb4e0 100644
--- a/gcc/range-op.cc
+++ b/gcc/range-op.cc
@@ -1832,13 +1832,6 @@ operator_div::wi_fold (irange &r, tree type,
return;
}
- // If flag_non_call_exceptions, we must not eliminate a division by zero.
- if (cfun->can_throw_non_call_exceptions)
- {
- r.set_varying (type);
- return;
- }
-
// If we're definitely dividing by zero, there's nothing to do.
if (wi_zero_p (type, divisor_min, divisor_max))
{
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr103451.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr103451.c
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..b83646d0b83
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr103451.c
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+// { dg-do compile }
+// { dg-options "-O2 -w" }
+
+int func_10_ptr_12;
+
+void func_10(long li_8)
+{
+ long *ptr_9 = &li_8;
+ li_8 &= *ptr_9 / 0 ?: li_8;
+ for (;;)
+ func_10_ptr_12 &= 4 ? *ptr_9 : 4;
+}
+
+void func_9_s_8()
+{
+ func_10(func_9_s_8);
+}
--
2.31.1
