Tamar Christina <[email protected]> writes: >> > + >> > + if (!wi::le_p (bounds[0], bounds[1], sign)) >> > + { >> > + r.set_varying (type); >> > + return true; >> > + } >> >> Is this possible after the above? I would hope that we could either drop >> this or turn it into an assert. Either way is ok with me. > > You're right, this is mostly a defensive check for a broken target bounds. > but an assert is 100% more appropriate. > >> >> OK with those changes, thanks. I think the patch has been around long >> enough that more active folks would have commented by now if they wanted >> to. >> But please say if you think the above le_p is still needed. > > No I think it can be an assert. OK with you to make it that, apply your > patch and > push or do you want to see the final version?
OK like that from my POV, no need for another round. Thanks for checking though. Richard
