https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117100
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #6)
> Simplified a bit:
Just some debug:
When we create one of the unswitch_predicate for the second switch, we have:
true_range:
[irange] int [4, 4][6, 6][8, 8] NONZERO 0xf
false_range:
[irange] int [4, +INF] NONZERO 0x7fffffff
That false_range looks wrong because there is no .
It was created by doing:
false_range = true_range;
if (!false_range.varying_p ()
&& !false_range.undefined_p ())
false_range.invert ();
The code looks correct.
Let me try something.
