On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:12 AM, Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
It should be indeed safe with the current handling of conversions, but
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
2011-07-11 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
* tree-vrp.c (simplify_conversion_using_ranges): Manually
translate the source value-range through the conversion chain.
This causes a build failure in
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
2011-07-11 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
* tree-vrp.c (simplify_conversion_using_ranges): Manually
translate the source
Richard Guenther wrote:
2011-07-13 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
* tree-vrp.c (simplify_conversion_using_ranges): Make sure
the final type is integral.
This fixes the spu-elf build failure.
Thanks,
Ulrich
--
Dr. Ulrich Weigand
GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
It should be indeed safe with the current handling of conversions, but
better be safe. So, like the following?
No. The point is that you
Hi,
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
The following actually works.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
Can you double-check it?
Seems sensible. Given this:
short s;
int i;
for (s = 0; s = 127; s++)
i += (signed char)(unsigned char)s;
return i;
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
+ tree rhs1 = gimple_assign_rhs1 (stmt);
+ gimple def_stmt = SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (rhs1);
+ value_range_t *final, *inner;
+
+ /* Obtain final and inner value-ranges for a conversion
+
Hi,
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
It should be indeed safe with the current handling of conversions, but
better be safe. So, like the following?
No. The point is that you can't compare the bounds that VRP computes with
each other when the outcome affects correctness. Think
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
It should be indeed safe with the current handling of conversions, but
better be safe. So, like the following?
No. The point is that you can't compare the bounds that VRP computes with
each
The following patch teaches VRP to disregard the intermediate
conversion in a sequence (T1)(T2)val if that sequence is
value-preserving for val. There are possibly some more
cases that could be handled when a sign-change is involved
but the following is a first safe step.
Bootstrapped on
Hi,
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
+ tree rhs1 = gimple_assign_rhs1 (stmt);
+ gimple def_stmt = SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (rhs1);
+ value_range_t *final, *inner;
+
+ /* Obtain final and inner value-ranges for a conversion
+ sequence
11 matches
Mail list logo