https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64322
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> > For VRP I'm thinking of (completely untested):
> > --- gcc/tree-vrp.c.jj 2014-12-01 14:57:30.000000000 +0100
> > +++ gcc/tree-vrp.c 2014-12-16 10:17:27.543111649 +0100
> > @@ -2434,6 +2434,7 @@ extract_range_from_binary_expr_1 (value_
> > && code != MAX_EXPR
> > && code != PLUS_EXPR
> > && code != MINUS_EXPR
> > + && code != RSHIFT_EXPR
> > && (vr0.type == VR_VARYING
> > || vr1.type == VR_VARYING
> > || vr0.type != vr1.type
> > @@ -2948,6 +2949,15 @@ extract_range_from_binary_expr_1 (value_
> > {
> > if (code == RSHIFT_EXPR)
> > {
> > + /* Even if vr0 is VARYING or otherwise not usable, we can derive
> > + useful ranges just from the shift count. E.g.
> > + x >> 63 for signed 64-bit x is always [-1, 0]. */
> > + if (vr0.type != VR_RANGE || symbolic_range_p (&vr0))
> > + {
> > + vr0.type = type = VR_RANGE;
> > + vr0.min = vrp_val_min (expr_type);
> > + vr0.max = vrp_val_max (expr_type);
> > + }
>
> Yeah, that should work. We should probably simply handle all operation
> codes that do not explicitely handle non-simple VR_RANGEs by promoting
> all operands that way (also handle the single-VR_UNDEFINED op case and
> VR_VARYING generally that way). The DIV and MOD_EXPR cases look like
> they would benefit from that
DIV and MOD already handle it (DIV quite similarly to this). And from the list
of codes that extract_range_from_binary_expr_1 handles, I think RSHIFT_EXPR is
the only one that (for certain VR_RANGEs of one argument) can decrease a
VR_VARYING into something narrower and didn't handle arbitrary ranges of the
other operand yet.
