On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 09:51:48AM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> On 14/09/12 09:38, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 09:27:27AM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> >>* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp81.c: New test.
>> >>* gcc.dg/tree-s
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 09:51:48AM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 14/09/12 09:38, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 09:27:27AM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
> >>* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp81.c: New test.
> >>* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp81-2.c: Same.
> >>* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp82.c: Same.
On 14/09/12 09:38, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 09:27:27AM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp81.c: New test.
>> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp81-2.c: Same.
>> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp82.c: Same.
>
> Why not vrp82.c, vrp83.c and vrp84.c (and rename the recently
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 09:27:27AM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp81.c: New test.
> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp81-2.c: Same.
> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp82.c: Same.
Why not vrp82.c, vrp83.c and vrp84.c (and rename the recently added
vrp80-2.c test to vrp81.c)?
Ja
Richard,
I've tried to handle more LSHIFT_EXPR cases with a shift range in tree-vrp.
Currently we handle cases like this:
- non-negative shifting out zeros
[5, 6] << [1, 2]
== [10, 24]
This patch adds these cases:
- unsigned shifting out ones
[0xff00, 0x] << [1, 2]
== [0x