https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:84f7bab89279ca1234fef88929c74caeda8cb55e
commit r12-1986-g84f7bab89279ca1234fef88929c74caeda8cb55e
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
--- Comment #10 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
> How can one write 0 - 1 in 1-bit signed though? 1 isn't in the range...
> One can only do 0 + -1 which doesn't overflow, or 0 - -1 which does.
Ah, yeah, of course. So the issue that 1 doe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #8)
> (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #7)
> > wi::sub sets the overflow flag for 0 - 1 with 1 bit signed... so the
> > comparison ends up being unde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Macleod ---
I think this is our old friend 1-bit signed overflow.
for 1 signed bit values, varying is [-1, 0]
range-op::build_lt checks to see if UB - 1 overflows, and if it does, then the
result is undefined.
wi:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> d is not an automatic variable, so is zero initialized.
Whoops. Sorry for the noise.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
--- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez ---
d is used before being defined. Isn't this entire test bogus?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] evrp |[11/12 Regression] evrp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Right before we have:
popping range for c.0_1, restoring int VARYING
But still don't see how we could get [0, 0] for the range there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
13 matches
Mail list logo
