https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63445
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Oct 9 08:20:53 2014
New Revision: 216028
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216028&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-10-09 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/63445
* tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63445
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63445
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
> The range of n_7 is suboptimal and the test on _6 can be eliminated.
Which turns out to be counter-productive for the testcase because the test is
used to derive information by the sccp pass; as a result,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63445
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
> The range of n_7 is suboptimal and the test on _6 can be eliminated.
The previous enhancement was apparently:
2010-04-06 Richard Guenther
PR tree-optimization/43627
* tree-vrp.c (extra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63445
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Found new range for j_9: [i_15 + 1, +INF]
>
> Visiting statement:
> _6 = j_9 - i_15;
> Found new range for _6: [1, +INF(OVF)]
>
> i_15 could be negative and thus j_9 - i_15 could well overflow the input
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63445
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63445
>
> --- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
> > i_15 could be negative and thus j_9 -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63445
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
> i_15 could be negative and thus j_9 - i_15 could well overflow the input
> range at the +INF side. (i_15 is [-INF, j_5(D) + -1])
Actually, this is a very good point. There is indeed a potential inte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63445
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
