https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81346
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #8) > I think always using an unsigned type for the range check would be simpler. > If we try to check that x>=INT_MIN+2 && x<=INT_MAX-2 with -fwrapv, int is > still not a suitable type in which to do > x-(INT_MIN+2)<=INT_MAX-2-(INT_MIN+2), while the issue doesn't exist with an > unsigned type. I'm trying to preserve what we did before, it can be tweaked incrementally if needed. > I notice you call build_range_check in GENERIC (and new code for GIMPLE). Is > that temporary until match.pd can optimize range checks? As long as we keep build_range_check, which is used in multiple other places in fold-const.c as well as the reassoc pass, using that for GENERIC looks faster/simpler than emitting the comparison and then optimizing it. > Do we want :s on trunc_div? Yes, will do that.
