Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com writes:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:23:22AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/14/14 10:02, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
When hacking on range reassoc opt, I've noticed we can emit
code with undefined behavior even when there wasn't one originally,
in particular for:
(X -
Hi!
When hacking on range reassoc opt, I've noticed we can emit
code with undefined behavior even when there wasn't one originally,
in particular for:
(X - 43U) = 3U || (X - 75U) = 3U
and this loop can transform that into
((X - 43U) ~(75U - 43U)) = 3U. */
we actually don't transform it
On October 14, 2014 6:02:19 PM CEST, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi!
When hacking on range reassoc opt, I've noticed we can emit
code with undefined behavior even when there wasn't one originally,
in particular for:
(X - 43U) = 3U || (X - 75U) = 3U
and this loop can transform that
On 10/14/14 10:02, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
When hacking on range reassoc opt, I've noticed we can emit
code with undefined behavior even when there wasn't one originally,
in particular for:
(X - 43U) = 3U || (X - 75U) = 3U
and this loop can transform that into
((X - 43U) ~(75U -
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:23:22AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/14/14 10:02, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
When hacking on range reassoc opt, I've noticed we can emit
code with undefined behavior even when there wasn't one originally,
in particular for:
(X - 43U) = 3U || (X - 75U) = 3U
and
On 10/14/14 11:40, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:23:22AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/14/14 10:02, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
When hacking on range reassoc opt, I've noticed we can emit
code with undefined behavior even when there wasn't one originally,
in particular for:
(X -
