On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 2:41 PM Alexandre Oliva <ol...@adacore.com> wrote: > > On Jan 27, 2025, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > What I was saying that the conservative tree_could_trap_p could say > > 'yes' to a certain encoding of a ref but 'no' to another if in reality > > the ref can never trap. We of course cannot (apart from bugs in > > tree_could_trap_p) turn a for-sure trap into a not-trap by simply > > rewriting the ref. > > I see. Yeah, that makes sense. > > > So I think we want this bit in (and it's dependences), but > > 'k, I'll split that bit out, after some clarification: > > > (I see the assert is no longer in the patch). > > That's because the assert went in as part of an earlier patch. I take > it it should be backed out along with the to-be-split-out bits above, > right?
Yes. (IIRC there's also a PR tripping over this or a similar assert) Richard. > > -- > Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ > Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer > More tolerance and less prejudice are key for inclusion and diversity > Excluding neuro-others for not behaving ""normal"" is *not* inclusive
