Re: [RFC][PR68217] Improve value range for signed & sign-bit-CST

2016-07-28 Thread kugan
Hi Richard, Thanks for the review. On 27/04/16 00:14, Richard Biener wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:44 PM, kugan wrote: As pointed out by Richard, for signed & sign-bit-CST value range should be [-INF, 0] range, not a [-INF, INF] range as happens now.

Re: [RFC][PR68217] Improve value range for signed & sign-bit-CST

2016-04-26 Thread kugan
On 27/04/16 00:14, Richard Biener wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:44 PM, kugan wrote: As pointed out by Richard, for signed & sign-bit-CST value range should be [-INF, 0] range, not a [-INF, INF] range as happens now. This patch fixes this. I

Re: [RFC][PR68217] Improve value range for signed & sign-bit-CST

2016-04-26 Thread Richard Biener
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:44 PM, kugan wrote: > As pointed out by Richard, for signed & sign-bit-CST value range should be > [-INF, 0] range, not a [-INF, INF] range as happens now. > > This patch fixes this. I bootstrapped and regression tested for >

[RFC][PR68217] Improve value range for signed & sign-bit-CST

2016-04-15 Thread kugan
As pointed out by Richard, for signed & sign-bit-CST value range should be [-INF, 0] range, not a [-INF, INF] range as happens now. This patch fixes this. I bootstrapped and regression tested for x86-64-linux-gnu with no new regression. Is this OK for statege-1. Thanks, Kugan