On 5/23/25 8:56 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Since the PR scrolled by, i don't think I ever noticed this thread.. or
at least where it lead.
This is not an "equivalence" that ranger would propagate because its a
relation with a constant.
the issue here seems to be:
if (x < 4) when x has
On 9/29/23 16:17, Jeff Law wrote:
On 9/5/23 01:12, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 11:06 PM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
wrote:
On 9/1/23 11:30, Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches wrote:
So it turns out there was a simplier way of starting to
improve VRP to start to fix PR 110131, P
On 9/5/23 01:12, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 11:06 PM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
wrote:
On 9/1/23 11:30, Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches wrote:
So it turns out there was a simplier way of starting to
improve VRP to start to fix PR 110131, PR 108360, and PR 108397.
That was re
On 9/1/23 02:40, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 8:08 AM Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches
wrote:
If this is only going to work with integers, you might want to check
that somewhere or switch to irange and int_range_max..
You can make it work with any kind (if you know op1 is a co
On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 11:06 PM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/1/23 11:30, Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > So it turns out there was a simplier way of starting to
> > improve VRP to start to fix PR 110131, PR 108360, and PR 108397.
> > That was rewrite test_for_singularity t
On 9/1/23 11:30, Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches wrote:
So it turns out there was a simplier way of starting to
improve VRP to start to fix PR 110131, PR 108360, and PR 108397.
That was rewrite test_for_singularity to use range_op_handler
and Value_Range.
This patch implements that and
OK? Boo
So it turns out there was a simplier way of starting to
improve VRP to start to fix PR 110131, PR 108360, and PR 108397.
That was rewrite test_for_singularity to use range_op_handler
and Value_Range.
This patch implements that and
OK? Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux-gnu with no regression
On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 8:08 AM Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
>
> On 8/11/23 05:51, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 11:17 AM Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> >> So it turns out there was a simplier way of starting to
> >> improve VRP to start to fix PR 110131
On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 8:08 AM Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
>
> On 8/11/23 05:51, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 11:17 AM Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> >> So it turns out there was a simplier way of starting to
> >> improve VRP to start to fix PR 110131
On 8/11/23 05:51, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 11:17 AM Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches
wrote:
So it turns out there was a simplier way of starting to
improve VRP to start to fix PR 110131, PR 108360, and PR 108397.
That was rewrite test_for_singularity to use range_op_handler
On 8/11/23 03:51, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 11:17 AM Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches
wrote:
So it turns out there was a simplier way of starting to
improve VRP to start to fix PR 110131, PR 108360, and PR 108397.
That was rewrite test_for_singularity to use
On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 11:17 AM Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> So it turns out there was a simplier way of starting to
> improve VRP to start to fix PR 110131, PR 108360, and PR 108397.
> That was rewrite test_for_singularity to use range_op_handler
> and Value_Range.
>
> This patch imp
So it turns out there was a simplier way of starting to
improve VRP to start to fix PR 110131, PR 108360, and PR 108397.
That was rewrite test_for_singularity to use range_op_handler
and Value_Range.
This patch implements that and
OK? Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux-gnu with no regression
13 matches
Mail list logo
