------- Comment #21 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-23 14:05 ------- Yep, INTEGRAL_TYPE_P is better. the u!=0 case might be why I tried to preserve ~[0,0] for unsigneds... maybe we have some failing testcases with ranges for range_is_nonnull, which only checks
static inline bool range_is_nonnull (value_range_t *vr) { return vr->type == VR_ANTI_RANGE && integer_zerop (vr->min) && integer_zerop (vr->max); } but doesn't see that for unsigned it's equivalent to [1, +INF]. I'll adjust that, too. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30911