https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83541
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83541
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:75845d584f490c294d40908168e5721adc38145d
commit r12-6529-g75845d584f490c294d40908168e5721adc38145d
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83541
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83541
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83541
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> I've deliberately avoided doing this ... (turning SSA propagator UNDEFINED
> into a random value rather than keeping it effectively VARYING during
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83541
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83541
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
int test(void)
{
int x = __INT_MAX__;
return x+1;
}
CCP also turns this into INT_MIN, again it could be bolder.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83541
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Yes, it is a known issue, (E)VRP is too conservative.
pushing new range for x_2(D): [2147483647, +INF] EQUIVALENCES: { x_2(D) } (1
elements)
Visiting stmt _4 = x_2(D) + 1;
Visiting statement:
_4 = x_2(D) +
