http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59649
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
Everything seems to be OK with the patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59649
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Two out of the 3 get_mode_bounds calls pass the same mode as the first and
third argument, so in that case it would be BImode in both cases and even
before Nick's change while min_val/max_val would be -128/127
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59649
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Untested fix (well, tested on the conftest.c and eyeballing it using cross).
> Don't have spare cycles to waste on a ia64 though, so if somebody is willing
> to bootstrap/regtest it, I'd appreciate it.
I wi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59649
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 31767
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31767&action=edit
gcc49-pr59649.patch
Untested fix (well, tested on the conftest.c and eyeballing it using cross).
Don't have spare
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59649
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
> So, IMHO either get_mode_bounds needs to special case BImode like
> trunc_int_for_mode does and make the bounds of BImode include values of 0
> and STORE_FLAG_VALUE, or the BImode hunk in trunc_int_for_mode
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59649
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59649
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59649
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
gen_int_mode(-1, BImode) returning (const_int 1) looks wrong.
