On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
Tweaking it so that (6<<X)==0 becomes X>=31 for TYPE_OVERFLOW_WRAPS and false for TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED is probably more controversial.Hm, yes. I think signed overflow != shift amount overflow, so testing the overflow macros for this isn't valid.
Would it be ok to always turn it to X>=31 then? (the value 31 is conveniently already computed in 'cand')
-- Marc Glisse